What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[temporalillusion]

Is the buildup done yet? Where do I sign up to be notified when it's done?

[strathmeyer]

Be specific and give an example then.
Uhh... I just did. I have given many examples throughout this thread.
Except I made no such claims.
See post #148.
Nope. You can't give an example of what would prove the God I defined only ones YOU define? hmm
Apparently not. On the other hand, I am seeing the benefits of being incredibly stupid as a debate strategy.

[PixyMisa]

Loss Leader, Pixy, D'rok, jsfisher, and everyone else tempted to post further in this thread:
Please, resist the temptation. It will obviously do no good. It won't make Dustin any smarter, and any lurkers who may have been reading this thread (or read it in the future) will already have been convinced of Dustin's intellectual incapabilities by this point.
Noooo! They be stealin my bucket!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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.

See my re-stated argument.



Well now...that is improvement. Congratulations. Compare that with this statement:
The truth of the first premise has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument.

In my specific argument it does.









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.

So we can't deduce a new fact from two other facts?




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?


...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?

See my previous posts about 'proof' being synonymous with 'evidence'.

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.


See my previous posts about axioms and Occam's razor.





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:



And then things just went downhill from there.

Did you ever provide a answer to that last question? 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?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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:





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





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.


Re-read what I actually said.

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.

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.





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.

If you assume that you exist and that the world is basically as you perceive it (what any sane person must do for practical reasons) then you could easily say 'definitely'.


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.

We don't need the "Entire fossil record" to show examples of evolutionary change. This is a creationist argument you're making here!


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

Not as bad as your science...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I submit that it's time for Dustin to tie a ribbon on this thing. Enough buildup already...let's have the soliloquy. Glaucon is losing interest.

If I have a soliloquy how will you know about it?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Uhh... I just did. I have given many examples throughout this thread.

You gave examples of what you'd accept as proof for a God of different characteristics from the one I defined. Not what you would accept as proof for the God as I defined him.

See post #148.

Post #148 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2672801&postcount=148) is your post. You stated what you would accept as evidence for a God given that... Except you never stated what you would accept for evidence of a God as I defined in my OP.

Apparently not. On the other hand, I am seeing the benefits of being incredibly stupid as a debate strategy.

I'm pretty sure you're used to that by now.

[PixyMisa]

We don't need the "Entire fossil record" to show examples of evolutionary change.
Yes, Dustin.

We know that, Dustin.

That has nothing to do with your claims, Dustin.

[Bob Klase]

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

Are you stating with 100% certainty that rocks can't hallucinate? I say that rocks can hallucinate. What's the evidence that I'm wrong.

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

But you can't attack it as being insufficient. You asked what would prove something to me and you're are completely qualified to decide what level of evidence/proof is sufficient for me or anyone other than yourself (and based on this thread I'm not sure you're qualified for that).

You're still attacking answers as being insufficient for you when you specifically asked something different.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I say that rocks can hallucinate. Prove me wrong.

Premise1- To hallucinate you must have a brain by definition.

Premise2- Rocks do not have brains.

Conclusion-Rocks can not hallucinate.



But you can't attack it as being insufficient. You asked what would prove something to me. You are not qualified to decide what level of evidence/proof is sufficient for me or anyone other than yourself (and based on this thread I'm not sure you're qualified for that). You're attacking answers as being insufficient for you.

I'm attacking them as being insufficient period. I can do that.

[D'rok]

The truth of the first premise has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument.In my specific argument it does.
Dustin, you are still maintaining a fundamental misunderstanding about formal logic. Truth and validity are separate concepts. Validity never relies upon truth. I'll simply point you to some review and wish you the best.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syllabus/node6.html

Cheers.

[Loss Leader]

If you assume that you exist and that the world is basically as you perceive it (what any sane person must do for practical reasons) then you could easily say 'definitely'.


I actually expected this answer from you, Dustin. Not surprisingly, you've made another logical error. This time it's an argument from incredulity. I'll explain it to you. Slowly.

Cbish had said that if the stars lined up to spell something, that would be proof enough for him of god. You answered that sufficiently advanced aliens could have done it.

Then you said that the fossil record proves evolution. When it was pointed out that sufficiently advanced aliens could have planted the fossils, you responded that your statement is true if we accept "that the world is basically as you perceive it."

But what is it that you accept when you accept that the world is basically as you perceive it? I doubt that you personally have perceived many fossils in person. You have not studied them (and neither have I). You have accepted them as true because other people have said they are true and these people seem like a trustworthy sort. What they've said seems to make sense to you.

Why do they seem trustworthy? Why do their theories seem to make sense? Probably, the reason is that you are familiar with what they say and most people generally accept it as true.

How do you know the earth is round? You've never personally perceived the curvature of the earth. There are relatively few people who have been up the 100,000 feet necessary to do so. Are there 600,000 people on earth right now who have flown into space? Even that many would mean that 99.99% of living humans have never perceived that the earth is curved.

And what about the stars rearranging to spell out a message? Why is it that this does not prove the existence of god sufficiently for you? The reason is that you are not familiar with it. You are incredulous of it. If science textbooks talked about a message written in distant stars that could be seen by sufficiently large telescopes, if there were pictures of the message, if scientists all agreed that it was a genuine message from god, if all the people on the planet all agreed that this was real, if mankind agreed that this was sufficient proof of god - would it be sufficient for you then?

See, you don't believe fossils prove evolution because of the evidence of your senses. You believe it because you've been told it. And unless you have a Ph.D. in paleontology, don't tell me differently.

So, once again you have founded your argument on a logical error. It's not surprising. You have absolutely no understanding of logic whatsoever.


We don't need the "Entire fossil record" to show examples of evolutionary change. This is a creationist argument you're making here!


Of course we don't need the "entire fossil record" to show examples of evolutionary change. I never said we did. The fossils we have are all evidence of evolution. They are evidence that probably tends to make the theory of evolution more true.

You are once again making the mistake of equivocation. "Evidence" is not synonymous with "proof."

I said showing me the known fossil record would not prove evolution; you pretended I said showing me the known fossil record would not be evidence of evolution.

They are two different things.

Really. Just stop. Your stupidity is giving me a nosebleed.

[Loss Leader]

Premise1- To hallucinate you must have a brain by definition.


Prove this 100% true in all cases.

Prove that science will never discover that rocks somehow have brains in a way that current science cannot even conceive of and that seems ridiculous now.

Prove that aliens aren't using a technology to obscure the real nature of rocks.

Prove that a trickster god isn't right now laughing at us as he changes our brain chemistry to keep us from processing the fact that rocks have brains.

Prove that you are not in a hospital bed in a coma hallucinating every single thing about existence and that it bears no relationship to reality.

Prove that you are not an artificial intelligence just switched on two minutes ago and that every thought and memory you have before that time is just part of your programming and bears no relationship to reality.

Can't do it?

Didn't think so.

[PixyMisa]

Does a chunk of contaminated silicon count as a "rock"?

[Darth Rotor]

I submit that it's time for Dustin to tie a ribbon on this thing. Enough buildup already...let's have the soliloquy. Glaucon is losing interest.

C'mon Socrates....we want to climb the ladder of beauty by patching the holes in the leaky jar of our souls so we can turn from the shadows of the cave and bask in the warm glow of the sun of knowledge and thus behold the Eternal itself. Or something like that.

Bukkake us with the seminal emission of your wisdom. Show us the "big picture" that we are missing down here amongst the trees. Sh[rule8]t or get off the pot already.
Thou art nominated for thine contribution to cunning linguistics. ;)

In other words: see y'all at the TLA sweepstakes, July 1, 2007, bitches! :D I'm backing this horse from the Lacone stables.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Prove that science will never discover that rocks somehow have brains in a way that current science cannot even conceive of and that seems ridiculous now.
Science doesn't need to, you've done the discovering for them by arguing with one such flint shard for the last few pages of this thread. ;)

DR

[strathmeyer]

You gave examples of what you'd accept as proof for a God of different characteristics from the one I defined. Not what you would accept as proof for the God as I defined him.

Post #148 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2672801&postcount=148) is your post. You stated what you would accept as evidence for a God given that... Except you never stated what you would accept for evidence of a God as I defined in my OP.

So you accept my proof for invisible people, then?

I beginning to realize that if I list and infinite number of instances of evidence for a god I will finally be able to prove to you that gods don't exist.

Do you think that if you keep repeating that I never stated what I would accept for evidence of your god it didn't happen?

If we tunneled to the center of the earth, and instead of finding a mantle core there was just a giant empty space with a small toad who could speak English and would describe to anyone who would listen how the great toad at the center of the Universe created all of the smaller toad and then sent them out to each create their own planets, I'd accept that.

[Darth Rotor]

Does a chunk of contaminated silicon count as a "rock"?
Only if the contamination is the result of a Bukkake with seminal emissions of wisdom. Otherwise, we find that sometimes a chunk of contaminated silicon is just a chunk of contaminated silicon, though other times it is half of Pamela Anderson's bust. :D

DR

[jsfisher]

Only if the contamination is the result of a Bukkake with seminal emissions of wisdom. Otherwise, we find that sometimes a chunk of contaminated silicon is just a chunk of contaminated silicon, though other times it is half of Pamela Anderson's bust. :D

DR


In the case of Pamela Anderson, silicone, not silicon.

No matter. Hmmm, show of hands: How many would accept Pamela Anderson's bust a proof there is a god?

[D'rok]

In the case of Pamela Anderson, silicone, not silicon.

No matter. Hmmm, show of hands: How many would accept Pamela Anderson's bust a proof there is a god?

With this as your 666th post I think you just revealed yourself, evil one. Tempt me not, o' befouler of feminine virtue!

:D

[Darth Rotor]

No matter. Hmmm, show of hands: How many would accept Pamela Anderson's bust a proof there is a god?
Nope, proof of the existence of plastic surgeons.

Of course, her presurgery bust, waaaaaay back when, in Canada, when Playboy first "discovered the twin peaks of Mount Pamela Anderson (yes, I'd like to)" might be considered evidence of a loving God, or at least a breast loving god. ;)

DR

[D'rok]

Thou art nominated for thine contribution to cunning linguistics. ;)

In other words: see y'all at the TLA sweepstakes, July 1, 2007, bitches! :D I'm backing this horse from the Lacone stables.

DR

Two DR nods in one month. You do me honour sir.

[jsfisher]

Nope, proof of the existence of plastic surgeons.


And would not plastic surgeons, the heralds of the divine silicone beef-up, be at the right hand of god?

[Loss Leader]

Science doesn't need to, you've done the discovering for them by arguing with one such flint shard for the last few pages of this thread. ;)

DR



Ooh, even by my standards that was mean.

Justified but mean.

[Beleth]

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?

Or do you simply "not know" what is proof but know what isn't?


I certainly know that this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84447) is not it.

[The Great Hairy One]

Bah, he still doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof. What a waste of time! :(

Kudos to you chaps for posting an amusing last page though. Chuckling as I type. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[Darth Rotor]

And would not plastic surgeons, the heralds of the divine silicone beef-up, be at the right hand of god?
Not as I see it. They are messing up Created beauty.

While I am not a fan of the plastic enhancement, I am impressed by the artistry of restorative and maxilary surgery. Good stuff.

DR

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I actually expected this answer from you, Dustin. Not surprisingly, you've made another logical error. This time it's an argument from incredulity.

No it's not.

Cbish had said that if the stars lined up to spell something, that would be proof enough for him of god. You answered that sufficiently advanced aliens could have done it.

Yes.

Then you said that the fossil record proves evolution. When it was pointed out that sufficiently advanced aliens could have planted the fossils, you responded that your statement is true if we accept "that the world is basically as you perceive it."

No, I said that using Occam's razor aliens are less likely and without any reason to believe it was aliens, should be thrown out.

But what is it that you accept when you accept that the world is basically as you perceive it? I doubt that you personally have perceived many fossils in person. You have not studied them (and neither have I). You have accepted them as true because other people have said they are true and these people seem like a trustworthy sort. What they've said seems to make sense to you.

Why do they seem trustworthy? Why do their theories seem to make sense? Probably, the reason is that you are familiar with what they say and most people generally accept it as true.

How do you know the earth is round? You've never personally perceived the curvature of the earth. There are relatively few people who have been up the 100,000 feet necessary to do so. Are there 600,000 people on earth right now who have flown into space? Even that many would mean that 99.99% of living humans have never perceived that the earth is curved.

I have seen plenty of fossils myself, The reason I believe in them is because it would be much more likely that they are real than that they are fake considering how quickly fake fossils have been exposed in the past. Moreover, there are pictures and videos of the earths curvature, satellite data showing it's curvature, not to mention the earths shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. If the earth weren't spherical then it's shadow wouldn't be curved.

And what about the stars rearranging to spell out a message? Why is it that this does not prove the existence of god sufficiently for you? The reason is that you are not familiar with it. You are incredulous of it. If science textbooks talked about a message written in distant stars that could be seen by sufficiently large telescopes, if there were pictures of the message, if scientists all agreed that it was a genuine message from god, if all the people on the planet all agreed that this was real, if mankind agreed that this was sufficient proof of god - would it be sufficient for you then?

No. I don't believe in things only due to pictures, I do not believe in things only due to assertions either. If these scientists claimed that it was a "message from God" then I would demand proof for such an assertion. Just pictures and Just assertions would not cut it, without any actual evidence that it was 'from God' I would not believe in it. There would have to be pictures, scientific agreement, personal testimony as well as evidence suggesting it's from God. I believe the fossils I see in texts books are real because I know how they are formed and I know that there have been frauds in the past that have been exposed. I know that since there is as of yet no evidence of alien civilizations especially those that visited earth, especially those that planted fossils, ever, I would have much much less justification in believing it was aliens opposed to natural occurrences.

I know natural occurrences can cause fossils, I know how fossils form, I've found fossils myself, personally, I have fossils myself, personally, If it was claimed that God wrote a message in the stars then I would not know HOW it happened, I would have many reasons to believe otherwise(Just as justified).


See, you don't believe fossils prove evolution because of the evidence of your senses. You believe it because you've been told it. And unless you have a Ph.D. in paleontology, don't tell me differently.

1. I've seen plenty of real life fossils myself and own many.

2. I don't need a Ph.D. to see evolutionary change in the fossil record. It's very obvious and clear.

So, once again you have founded your argument on a logical error. It's not surprising. You have absolutely no understanding of logic whatsoever.

You've been sitting here arguing from authority and I have no understanding of logic? Hmm.




Of course we don't need the "entire fossil record" to show examples of evolutionary change. I never said we did. The fossils we have are all evidence of evolution. They are evidence that probably tends to make the theory of evolution more true.

This is what you said implying since we don't have the entire fossil record we can't prove anything...

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.

You are once again making the mistake of equivocation. "Evidence" is not synonymous with "proof."

Dozens of reputable dictionaries disagree.

I said showing me the known fossil record would not prove evolution; you pretended I said showing me the known fossil record would not be evidence of evolution.

You're backtracking on your implication. You said that we can't prove evolution because we don't have the ENTIRE fossil record, as if we could 'prove it' if we did have the entire thing.

They are two different things.

Really. Just stop. Your stupidity is giving me a nosebleed.


No, That nosebleed is from verbal the smackdown I've just now given you.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Prove this 100% true in all cases.

By definition of the word "hallucinate" it is.

Prove that science will never discover that rocks somehow have brains in a way that current science cannot even conceive of and that seems ridiculous now.

By definition rocks don't have brains. If they did they couldn't be defined as "rocks".
Rock-mineral matter of variable composition, consolidated or unconsolidated, assembled in masses or considerable quantities in nature, as by the action of heat or water.

Prove that aliens aren't using a technology to obscure the real nature of rocks.

There's no valid reason to believe they are. I'm more justified in believing they aren't.

Prove that a trickster god isn't right now laughing at us as he changes our brain chemistry to keep us from processing the fact that rocks have brains.

There's no valid reason to believe there is. I'm more justified in believing there isn't.


Prove that you are not in a hospital bed in a coma hallucinating every single thing about existence and that it bears no relationship to reality.

See above.

Prove that you are not an artificial intelligence just switched on two minutes ago and that every thought and memory you have before that time is just part of your programming and bears no relationship to reality.

Can't do it?

Didn't think so.


See above.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Bah, he still doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof. What a waste of time! :(

Kudos to you chaps for posting an amusing last page though. Chuckling as I type. :)

Cheers,
TGHO


Are you blind or simply illiterate? I've posted several times showing the difference between "evidence" and "proof" and explaining their differences in different contexts. By definition from any reputable dictionary as well as any reputable scientific lexicon, Proof can be synonymous with evidence in some contexts and evidence synonymous with proof. According to any mathematical dictionaries or in different contexts "Proof" means showing something to necessarily be true given a set of specific axioms. I've explained this multiple times and it's the last time I'm going to do it. If you want to ignore what dozens of reputable dictionaries and scientific lexicons say then you're a waste of my time.

[PixyMisa]

This is what you said implying since we don't have the entire fossil record we can't prove anything...
This is correct. In addition, if we did have the entire fossil record, we couldn't prove anything, not even that we had the entire fossil record.

Dozens of reputable dictionaries disagree.
Cite.

No, That nosebleed is from verbal the smackdown I've just now given you.
Where was that, Dustin?

[The Great Hairy One]

Are you blind or simply illiterate? I've posted several times showing the difference between "evidence" and "proof" and explaining their differences in different contexts. By definition from any reputable dictionary as well as any reputable scientific lexicon, Proof can be synonymous with evidence in some contexts and evidence synonymous with proof. According to any mathematical dictionaries or in different contexts "Proof" means showing something to necessarily be true given a set of specific axioms. I've explained this multiple times and it's the last time I'm going to do it. If you want to ignore what dozens of reputable dictionaries and scientific lexicons say then you're a waste of my time.


Tell me, Dustin, what science degrees do you hold, and from what universities did you obtain them from?

You are still confusing proof and evidence. You didn't even understand the links I posted - which were aimed at high school children. My 11 year old son knows more about "proof" and "evidence" than you!

Cheers,
TGHO

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Proof-1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736546

Proof-evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/proof?view=uk

Proof-the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proof

Proof-The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/P0596500.html


Proof-evidence.

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

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You are still confusing proof and evidence.

No I'm not. I've defined it clearly. See above for a last example. You're stubbornly holding onto one definition in one context for a word that has numerous definitions and can be used in numerous contexts. I won't discuss this anymore with you. I'm done. You're ignoring the facts because you're stubborn and you're wasting my time at that.

[The Great Hairy One]

No I'm not. I've defined it clearly. See above for a last example. You're stubbornly holding onto one definition in one context for a word that has numerous definitions and can be used in numerous contexts. I won't discuss this anymore with you. I'm done. You're ignoring the facts because you're stubborn and you're wasting my time at that.


Every single one of those links has as their first definition "the degree of evidence..."

See that?

The degree of evidence...

:rolleyes:

Cheers,
TGHO

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Every single one of those links has as their first definition "the degree of evidence..."

See that?

The degree of evidence...

:rolleyes:

Cheers,
TGHO

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

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


Now I'm done. :rolleyes:

[PixyMisa]

(removed because it was counter-productive)

[The Great Hairy One]

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

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


Now I'm done. :rolleyes:


Not quite, there's still a little bit of pink there in the middle. *Poke poke*

Please read the Notes sections on both those links. Just to make them absolutely clear, I'll quote them here:

"evidence (from Latin e- 'out' + videre 'to see') is information that helps form a conclusion; proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion"

Quite. Clearly. Different.

:newlol

Cheers,
TGHO

[The Great Hairy One]

Oh, you were done long since, Dustin.


You sure? I think he's still a little bloody in the middle. You like your roast rare or medium?

;)

Cheers,
TGHO

[PixyMisa]

You sure? I think he's still a little bloody in the middle. You like your roast rare or medium?
That's how it goes. I thought better of that remark, and now it's preserved for posterity. :p

Dustin wants the certainty of mathematics without the bother of rigorous definitions. Well, he can want anything he likes; he just can't have it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's about time we got back on topic now.

[PixyMisa]

Righty-o.

First define your God in strict operational terms, such that there are specific measurements that can be made, both in principle and in practice, that will suffice to differentiate between a universe wherein the hypothesized being might exist and one in which it does not. The more such measurements you can specify, the better.

Then define proof, in any combination you choose of operational and statistical methodologies.

Then we'll be able to answer.

[Loss Leader]

Dusty, Dusty, Dusty. I told you proof and evidence were not synonyms. But you kept saying they were. You said:



Dozens of reputable dictionaries disagree.



Then, you quoted the dictionaries. And almost all of them said you were wrong. Did you even notice that the definitions did not say what you claimed they did? Let's go through them.


Proof-1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736546


See? Proof is not a synonym for evidence. Proof is sufficient evidence to be conclusive. Proof is sufficient evidence to establish a truth. A single piece of evidence may or may not be sufficient to prove something.

Prosecutors had evidence tha OJ killed his wife. They had her blood inside his car. But the jury did not find that single piece of evidence sufficient to prove he killed her. Proof is a degree of evidence according to your own source.


Proof-evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/proof?view=uk


Once again, only evidence that establishes something as true is proof. We have evidence that burning things makes them lighter. Is it sufficient to say that all things have phlogiston which is liberated during burning? Nope. We have not proven the existence of phlogiston.

Zero for two.


Proof-the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proof


Yet again, it does not say that proof is evidence. It says that proof is an amount an type of evidence that forces the mind to accept something as true. I have evidence that your reading comprehension is abysmal. Does it prove that you're an idiot? No. It does not force someone to accept that you are an idiot. It is only one more puzzle piece that helps add to the overall picture that you are an idiot.


Proof-The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/P0596500.html


Proof is only evidence sufficient to force the conclusion of truthfulness, not just evidence in and of itself. We have evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Does that prove evolution? Of course not. There may be other explanations. Are they likely? Of course not. But that doesn't make them impossible. It doesn't force us to discard them. Lots of unlikely things happen every day. Marisa Tomei has an Oscar, for pity's sake. Anything can happen.

Zero for four.

Proof-evidence.

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


Well, this source seems to disagree with the dictionaries and say that proof equals evidence. Let's just make sure it really does ...

Oh my Lord! You prevaricated! This is what your source really says:

Notes: evidence (from Latin e- 'out' + videre 'to see') is information that helps form a conclusion; proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion


Your source goes out of its way in a special note to state that evidence and proof are NOT true synonyms. Evidence helps form a conclusion, proof makes the conclusion true.

But your source, being a thesaurus, also equates proof with all sorts of things including: clue, scoop, trace and paper trail.

Perhaps you should not ask what we would accept as proof of God, but what we would accept as a paper trail.

Zero for five.

Conclusion: I believe the above constitutes evidence that you do not know how to read. It's not proof, though. If you have any evidence that you can read, you should present it now.

[D'rok]

Dusty, Dusty, Dusty. I told you proof and evidence were not synonyms. But you kept saying they were. You said:





Then, you quoted the dictionaries. And almost all of them said you were wrong. Did you even notice that the definitions did not say what you claimed they did? Let's go through them.





See? Proof is not a synonym for evidence. Proof is sufficient evidence to be conclusive. Proof is sufficient evidence to establish a truth. A single piece of evidence may or may not be sufficient to prove something.

Prosecutors had evidence tha OJ killed his wife. They had her blood inside his car. But the jury did not find that single piece of evidence sufficient to prove he killed her. Proof is a degree of evidence according to your own source.





Once again, only evidence that establishes something as true is proof. We have evidence that burning things makes them lighter. Is it sufficient to say that all things have phlogiston which is liberated during burning? Nope. We have not proven the existence of phlogiston.

Zero for two.





Yet again, it does not say that proof is evidence. It says that proof is an amount an type of evidence that forces the mind to accept something as true. I have evidence that your reading comprehension is abysmal. Does it prove that you're an idiot? No. It does not force someone to accept that you are an idiot. It is only one more puzzle piece that helps add to the overall picture that you are an idiot.





Proof is only evidence sufficient to force the conclusion of truthfulness, not just evidence in and of itself. We have evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Does that prove evolution? Of course not. There may be other explanations. Are they likely? Of course not. But that doesn't make them impossible. It doesn't force us to discard them. Lots of unlikely things happen every day. Marisa Tomei has an Oscar, for pity's sake. Anything can happen.

Zero for four.




Well, this source seems to disagree with the dictionaries and say that proof equals evidence. Let's just make sure it really does ...

Oh my Lord! You prevaricated! This is what your source really says:

Notes: evidence (from Latin e- 'out' + videre 'to see') is information that helps form a conclusion; proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion


Your source goes out of its way in a special note to state that evidence and proof are NOT true synonyms. Evidence helps form a conclusion, proof makes the conclusion true.

But your source, being a thesaurus, also equates proof with all sorts of things including: clue, scoop, trace and paper trail.

Perhaps you should not ask what we would accept as proof of God, but what we would accept as a paper trail.

Zero for five.

Conclusion: I believe the above constitutes evidence that you do not know how to read. It's not proof, though. If you have any evidence that you can read, you should present it now.


Ouch.

[Complexity]

:wave1



:clap:

[andyandy]

You're ignoring the facts because you're stubborn and you're wasting my time at that.

:id:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dusty, Dusty, Dusty. I told you proof and evidence were not synonyms. But you kept saying they were. You said:





Then, you quoted the dictionaries. And almost all of them said you were wrong. Did you even notice that the definitions did not say what you claimed they did? Let's go through them.





See? Proof is not a synonym for evidence. Proof is sufficient evidence to be conclusive. Proof is sufficient evidence to establish a truth. A single piece of evidence may or may not be sufficient to prove something.

Prosecutors had evidence tha OJ killed his wife. They had her blood inside his car. But the jury did not find that single piece of evidence sufficient to prove he killed her. Proof is a degree of evidence according to your own source.





Once again, only evidence that establishes something as true is proof. We have evidence that burning things makes them lighter. Is it sufficient to say that all things have phlogiston which is liberated during burning? Nope. We have not proven the existence of phlogiston.

Zero for two.





Yet again, it does not say that proof is evidence. It says that proof is an amount an type of evidence that forces the mind to accept something as true. I have evidence that your reading comprehension is abysmal. Does it prove that you're an idiot? No. It does not force someone to accept that you are an idiot. It is only one more puzzle piece that helps add to the overall picture that you are an idiot.





Proof is only evidence sufficient to force the conclusion of truthfulness, not just evidence in and of itself. We have evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Does that prove evolution? Of course not. There may be other explanations. Are they likely? Of course not. But that doesn't make them impossible. It doesn't force us to discard them. Lots of unlikely things happen every day. Marisa Tomei has an Oscar, for pity's sake. Anything can happen.

Zero for four.




Well, this source seems to disagree with the dictionaries and say that proof equals evidence. Let's just make sure it really does ...

Oh my Lord! You prevaricated! This is what your source really says:

Notes: evidence (from Latin e- 'out' + videre 'to see') is information that helps form a conclusion; proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion


Your source goes out of its way in a special note to state that evidence and proof are NOT true synonyms. Evidence helps form a conclusion, proof makes the conclusion true.

But your source, being a thesaurus, also equates proof with all sorts of things including: clue, scoop, trace and paper trail.

Perhaps you should not ask what we would accept as proof of God, but what we would accept as a paper trail.

Zero for five.

Conclusion: I believe the above constitutes evidence that you do not know how to read. It's not proof, though. If you have any evidence that you can read, you should present it now.


You're arguing that "Sufficient evidence" and simply "evidence" aren't the same thing. Who defines what "Sufficient" means? It's totally relative to who is deciding what is sufficient or not. Hardly any evidence could be sufficient enough for some people.

[PixyMisa]

You're arguing that "Sufficient evidence" and simply "evidence" aren't the same thing. Who defines what "Sufficient" means? It's totally relative to who is deciding what is sufficient or not. Hardly any evidence could be sufficient enough for some people.
Well, when you have any evidence, let us know.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well, when you have any evidence, let us know.

Evidence for what? His argument was that "Proof" and "Evidence" aren't the same because the definition of "Proof" says "sufficient evidence" but doesn't actually define what "sufficient" is meaning that "sufficient" could mean the smallest amount of evidence which proves my point that Proof=Evidence.

[D'rok]

Evidence for what? His argument was that "Proof" and "Evidence" aren't the same because the definition of "Proof" says "sufficient evidence" but doesn't actually define what "sufficient" is meaning that "sufficient" could mean the smallest amount of evidence which proves my point that Proof=Evidence.


Here's a nice concise definition of logical proof:
a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logical+proof

This, and only this, is the definition of "proof" in the context of your argument, and in this context it is not synonymous with evidence in any way.

[andyandy]

You're arguing that "Sufficient evidence" and simply "evidence" aren't the same thing. Who defines what "Sufficient" means? It's totally relative to who is deciding what is sufficient or not. Hardly any evidence could be sufficient enough for some people.

sufficient is a rigourously defined term used in both mathematical and philosphical logic. It is the equivilent of learning basic arithmetic operators. Yet you want to conduct a proof of God without even understanding what necessary and sufficient conditions are. I am constantly amazed by your ignorance.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Here's a nice concise definition of logical proof:
a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logical+proof


That's the definition of "Logical proof" not simply "Proof".

This, and only this, is the definition of "proof" in the context of your argument, and in this context it is not synonymous with evidence in any way.

How so? How is it the definition of the context of my argument?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

sufficient is a rigourously defined term used in both mathematical and philosphical logic. It is the equivilent of learning basic arithmetic operators. Yet you want to conduct a proof of God without even understanding what necessary and sufficient conditions are. I am constantly amazed by your ignorance.

rigorously*

philosophical*

equivalent*

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

[Soapy Sam]

It would attract my sustained attention, if the pencil on my desk lifted in the air and hovered for a count of three.

[D'rok]

That's the definition of "Logical proof" not simply "Proof".

Exactly



How so? How is it the definition of the context of my argument?
Because you have constructed a logical proof. You have not proven in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense, but in the rigorous formal logic sense.

[PixyMisa]

That's the definition of "Logical proof" not simply "Proof".
So what type of proof have you presented us? An illogical one?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Because you have constructed a logical proof. You have not proven in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense, but in the rigorous formal logic sense.

How so? How is my question constructed as a "logical" one where logical proof is needed?

So what type of proof have you presented us? An illogical one?


Is this a joke? Or are you totally unaware of what a "logical argument" is?

[andyandy]

rigorously*

philosophical*

equivalent*

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

We have a slam dunk.

No further questions.

Thank you and goodnight.

Other cliches.

In what framework is your proof set if not through philosophical or mathematical logic? You use iff operators in your ontological argument, perhaps you should look up what those are.

[Loss Leader]

You're arguing that "Sufficient evidence" and simply "evidence" aren't the same thing. Who defines what "Sufficient" means? It's totally relative to who is deciding what is sufficient or not. Hardly any evidence could be sufficient enough for some people.


Yes! Yes, Dustin my boy! That is exactly right.

The question of how much evidence is sufficient to prove something is at the absolute heart of law, science and logic.

I'm glad you see that now.

Who decides what constitutes sufficient evidence to be considered proof? It depends on the type of use we intend to make of the information.

In this thread, you asked people what evidence they personally would accept as proof. That's the lowest, most subjective level possible. It has no application except to satisfy the individual thinker. It may not even satisfy his best friend or closest ally.

In law, there are many different standards of proof that we, as a society, have settled on. If you rob my store and I sue you for the money you stole, I have to prove you took it by a preponderance of the evidence - that it is more likely than not that you took it. But if the DA wants to charge you with a crime, she has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Notice, the jurors are still allowed to convict you if they have doubt, just not reasonable doubt. The higher standard is employed because being conviced of a crime by the state is much more serious than a private action for money.

Scientists have an entirely different standard of proof. They generally consider a matter settled when there is no known evidence that does not fit their theory. They do not allow themselves any doubt at all. If there is any doubt, the matter is entirely undecided. Even then, scientists know that new information might be discovered that will cast doubt on even the most long-settled principles. So they never consider a matter proven. Ever. It is impossible to prove a matter in science, only to temporarily relieve doubt and satisfy their minds.

Logical proof is the highest standard of proof there is. It means that the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are true. There is zero room for doubt.

Now, your question is, "Who defines what 'Sufficient' means?" This is an excellent question. The answer is that everyone involved in the discussion must agree how much evidence will constitute proof. To do so, they use logic. The people of the US say that they want criminals in jail but they don't want a powerful government railroading helpless individuals for political reasons; thus they demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientists say that they want a clear understanding of the way the world works but they don't want to fall into the trap of dogmatism that weighed down the Dark Ages; thus they never consider a matter proven. Logicians say they want to be certain that their conclusions are indisputably rock-solid so they can build upon them; thus they accept only perfect internal consistency as proof.

When is proof an entirely subjective matter? Whenever the only person you have to convince is yourself.

Was Halo better than Halo 2? Did Keri Russel make a mistake cutting her hair? Are the Yankees done for the season? - Whatever you decide about these issues is the right answer because the only person bound by the decision is yourself.

But when attempting to convince others, you're going to have to agree on a standard of proof first.

In this thread, you have randomly varried between the highest and lowest standards of proof as it suits you at the moment. And that behavior will never help you prove anything to anybody.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes! Yes, Dustin my boy! That is exactly right.

The question of how much evidence is sufficient to prove something is at the absolute heart of law, science and logic.

I'm glad you see that now.

Who decides what constitutes sufficient evidence to be considered proof? It depends on the type of use we intend to make of the information.

In this thread, you asked people what evidence they personally would accept as proof. That's the lowest, most subjective level possible. It has no application except to satisfy the individual thinker. It may not even satisfy his best friend or closest ally.

In law, there are many different standards of proof that we, as a society, have settled on. If you rob my store and I sue you for the money you stole, I have to prove you took it by a preponderance of the evidence - that it is more likely than not that you took it. But if the DA wants to charge you with a crime, she has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Notice, the jurors are still allowed to convict you if they have doubt, just not reasonable doubt. The higher standard is employed because being conviced of a crime by the state is much more serious than a private action for money.

Scientists have an entirely different standard of proof. They generally consider a matter settled when there is no known evidence that does not fit their theory. They do not allow themselves any doubt at all. If there is any doubt, the matter is entirely undecided. Even then, scientists know that new information might be discovered that will cast doubt on even the most long-settled principles. So they never consider a matter proven. Ever. It is impossible to prove a matter in science, only to temporarily relieve doubt and satisfy their minds.

Logical proof is the highest standard of proof there is. It means that the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are true. There is zero room for doubt.

Now, your question is, "Who defines what 'Sufficient' means?" This is an excellent question. The answer is that everyone involved in the discussion must agree how much evidence will constitute proof. To do so, they use logic. The people of the US say that they want criminals in jail but they don't want a powerful government railroading helpless individuals for political reasons; thus they demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientists say that they want a clear understanding of the way the world works but they don't want to fall into the trap of dogmatism that weighed down the Dark Ages; thus they never consider a matter proven. Logicians say they want to be certain that their conclusions are indisputably rock-solid so they can build upon them; thus they accept only perfect internal consistency as proof.

When is proof an entirely subjective matter? Whenever the only person you have to convince is yourself.

Was Halo better than Halo 2? Did Keri Russel make a mistake cutting her hair? Are the Yankees done for the season? - Whatever you decide about these issues is the right answer because the only person bound by the decision is yourself.

But when attempting to convince others, you're going to have to agree on a standard of proof first.

In this thread, you have randomly varried between the highest and lowest standards of proof as it suits you at the moment. And that behavior will never help you prove anything to anybody.


So in asking "What proof would you accept for God?" I then can't criticize the purported proof they offer up as an answer? :rolleyes:

[D'rok]

How so? How is my question constructed as a "logical" one where logical proof is needed?

This thread was the buildup to the Proof of God thread right? No, the construction of the question in this thread does not necessitate a logical proof for an answer. But this is why I clarified the kind of answer I was going to give before I gave it. My answer was what would constitute evidence in the legal sense - i.e., something that would convince me.

In your Proof of God thread you are most definitely dealing with a logical proof, and only a logical proof. You are not dealing with evidence. I feel you are being dishonest by trying to blur the lines.

[andyandy]

So in asking "What proof would you accept for God?" I then can't criticize the purported proof they offer up as an answer? :rolleyes:

edit - being rude :)

[PixyMisa]

So in asking "What proof would you accept for God?" I then can't criticize the purported proof they offer up as an answer? :rolleyes:
Exactly.

[Loss Leader]

So in asking "What proof would you accept for God?" I then can't criticize the purported proof they offer up as an answer? :rolleyes:


That's absolutely right. The question asks for an opinion. No opinion can be wrong.

However, in saying, "I have proven the existence of God," you have to measure up to a much higher standard of proof because you are trying to convince others, a standard of proof agreed on in advance by all parties.

If you say, "I have proven God sufficently for myself," you can use whichever level of proof you like and everyone (or most people here, I suspect), will say, "Good for you, Dustin. We're glad you've settled that issue in your own mind." Then, they will go get a strawberry smoothie and make some phone calls.

[PixyMisa]

How so? How is my question constructed as a "logical" one where logical proof is needed?

Is this a joke? Or are you totally unaware of what a "logical argument" is?
You seem confused.

[Loss Leader]

How so? How is my question constructed as a "logical" one where logical proof is needed?


Well, your argument in the OP of the "Proof of God" thread certainly is. You even use formal logical notation to explain it.

But the real reason that it is held to the standard of a logical proof is that you intend to build on it. You intend the conclusion of that argument ("There is an omni* God") to be a premise in your next arguments:

- Such God is identical to the New Testament God
- We as humans should obey the word of God
- Jesus was our Lord and savior

Or whatever else you want to convince people of. If you want to use that conclusion as a premise in a new argument, it must necessarily follow from your basic premisses. Otherwise, your second argument will be fatally flawed right from the start.

[Complexity]

Dustin - You are still utterly wrong.

Funny how I'm not the only one who thinks that your misunderstanding and abuse of 'proof' is fundamental.

I'm glad that you're persuaded by your 'proof'. Bask in the glory - you've achieved the impossible.

Your service to your god will be remembered in school pageants and little plaster figurines of you will be given to children to paint, always in a respectful manner.

Courses about your proof will be offered in Advanced Courses in all of the best schools (only the fundie Christian universities have been allowed to remain open, of course).

I'm sure that you'll supported by the surtaxes that I and other skeptics will happily pay, just in case you come up with an even cooler proof.

Wait a minute - you didn't actually come up with this proof, did you?

Didn't you receive it from The Great Beyond during an epiphanic and spiritually orgasmic moment on the side of the road?

Still, you did have the faith to recognize its perfection and brilliance and brought it down from the mountain. Not to mention the coherence of your presentation and the brilliance with which you defended it from us morons.

Gee, you're wonderful!

Whatcha gonna do for an encore?

[PixyMisa]

Complexity, I might almost suspect you of employing sarcasm there, if I didn't know you better.

[Complexity]

Pixy - Forgive me for never having mentioned how wonderful you are.

:alc:

(No concepts were wounded in the making of this post.)

[jsfisher]

You're arguing that "Sufficient evidence" and simply "evidence" aren't the same thing. Who defines what "Sufficient" means? It's totally relative to who is deciding what is sufficient or not. Hardly any evidence could be sufficient enough for some people.


Wow, that's really grasping for straws.

Dustin, just leave the goal posts where they were. They were just fine, there.

[Caius Textor]

Dustin´s blunders notwithstanding, isn´t the original question interesting at the very least?

If we have a rational, justified skepticism in the existence of a god, isn´t our job as rationalists to provide an instance that would prove us wrong?

We "believe" in science because of the large amount of diverse data it has compiled and because of the very sucessful theories and predictions it made. We could go back on topic here and devise the very same criteria that would make us accept the existence of a god.

Let us set aside any definition that would make its existence materially impossible to attain and stick with the ones that are reachable per hypothesis.

I didn´t read all the 8 pages, so sorry if I´m being redundant.

[Loss Leader]

Let us set aside any definition that would make its existence materially impossible to attain and stick with the ones that are reachable per hypothesis.


Go nuts. Let me know what you come up with. I, for one, tend to dislike trying to prove the existence of something that can't even be defined. But I will gladly listen to any ideas that you may have.

[Caius Textor]

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.

[Caius Textor]

Also, and excuse me for the follow-up post, I´m not trying to prove anything, neither I´m suggesting we do so. I´m putting my rationality to test and stating what would convince me that I´m wrong, instead of assuming a breachless position.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
I say that rocks can hallucinate. Prove me wrong.

Premise1- To hallucinate you must have a brain by definition.

That is a premise- now prove that it's correct. I can find many dictionaries which do not mention 'brain' in the definition of 'hallucinate'.

Premise2- Rocks do not have brains.

Another premise. Rocks do have brains given to them by your god. But they are invisible hidden brains which you can not find by scientific testing.

Conclusion-Rocks can not hallucinate.

Conclusions based on premises(s) are only correct if the premise are correct.

If jumping from a premise or 2 directly to a conclusion is "proof" then I can prove that the christain god doesn't exist:

Premise 1- A god that condemns people to an eternity in hell no matter what they've done in a 100 year life is a mentally disturbed psychopath.

Premise 2- The christian god is not a psychopath.

Conclusion- Your god does not exist.

I'm attacking them as being insufficient period. I can do that.

Yes- it's much like asking what my favorite food is and when I say pizza you attack that answer because you don't like it. You can do it but it only makes you look ignorant about your own question.

[Bob Klase]

You're arguing that "Sufficient evidence" and simply "evidence" aren't the same thing. Who defines what "Sufficient" means?

I thought you decided that- that's exactly what you've been doing.

It's totally relative to who is deciding what is sufficient or not. Hardly any evidence could be sufficient enough for some people.

Incredibly enough, less that three hours before writing that you wrote:



Originally Posted by Bob Klase
But you can't attack it as being insufficient. You asked what would prove something to me. You are not qualified to decide what level of evidence/proof is sufficient for me or anyone other than yourself (and based on this thread I'm not sure you're qualified for that). You're attacking answers as being insufficient for you.[/QUOTE]

I'm attacking them as being insufficient period. I can do that.[/QUOTE]

But I'm sure you fail to see the contradiction.

[Bob Klase]

No matter. Hmmm, show of hands: How many would accept Pamela Anderson's bust a proof there is a god?

I might, but only after extensive 'hands-on' investigation of said bust.

[pgwenthold]

I'm only on page 6 and getting tired, but I wonder, has anyone pointed out a very important point yet: The question of what I would accept as PROOF of a God is totally irrelevent. It doesn't matter whether I know what I would accept or not. A omniscient god already knows full well what I would accept as proof of his existence regardless of whether I know it or not. The fact that I have not accepted anything as proof of god tells me that either he has not provided it, is not omniscient and doesn't know what it would take to prove his existence to me, or that he is but doesn't care enough about whether I do or don't believe he exists to provide proof.

If he doesn't care, then why should I? And if he isn't omniscient, and doesn't know how what it would take to prove himself to me, then he's not all that much of an all-powerful god (and what else does he not know?)

So it's a waste of time to argue about it. What would I accept as PROOF of God? Don't know, don't care, it doesn't matter what I think. That's God's problem. If he can't provide proof of himself, then why should I worry about it?

[Caius Textor]

It is not a matter of caring or not. You can´t set an allegedly rational a priori refusal of a material proof. That way you can block yourself from believing in anything real, such as gravity, Newton´s laws, electromagnetic inductance...

What doesn´t matter is any sort of explanation of why we won´t ever see any proof. It is beyond the scope of this discution, that assumes that IF a god REALLY exists and IF we could have objective knowledge of its "wordly presence" (i.e., actual existence), what kind of such knowledge would be acceptable.

To put it differently: if god exists, it´s no different from radiation, particles, osmosis and Bernoulli´s effect. We should be able to know it the same way we know the particles are there and magnetism is there.
Now, what kind of phenomena could we rightly assume to be god´s manifestation?

Does that makes things more clear?

[Loss Leader]

Now, what kind of phenomena could we rightly assume to be god´s manifestation?



Why don't you tell us.

[strathmeyer]

Dustin, if you could have a sane, coherent conversation about a god I would accept that as proof that god existed.

[Caius Textor]

Why don't you tell us.

Haven´t I already?

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.

Am I the only one to throw in ideas just because I admire the problem?

[Loss Leader]

Haven´t I already?


No, you haven't. You stated that some type of manifestation of things that break physical laws would prove God. Then you asked us what those manifestations would be.


Am I the only one to throw in ideas just because I admire the problem?


Quite. Your approach assumes the existence of God in order to create a list of testable phenomena. There may not be anything wrong with such an approach in general except nobody here is able to think of anything testable that would be evidence of the existence of God. I don't really understand the point of inventing an assignment and then asking others to do it. We can't. We give up. We are stumped as to how to test for the existence of God. So, you tell us whatever you think up and we'll be glad to consider it.

[Caius Textor]

I didn´t invent the assignment (Dustin did) and throw the burden to others. I suggested that WE tried to come up with ideas in order to give better grounds to our rationality.

You misunderstood my explanation to pgwenthold. I didn´t ASK what the manifestations would be (actually I did: rethoricaly), and I said they should be violations of natural laws. Do you want examples?

- A thrown rock´s trajectory describing the equation y=sinx in polar coordinates and not a parabola.
- Two voltimeters connected to the same circuit giving muttually contradictory readings.
- Making 1kg of iron keep the same nuclear proporties but behave macroscopically as if it were Jell-O.

"God´s hand" would be obvious if those were followed by the very presence of a being stating "I created the universe and I will do such and such with these phenomena" or something of the kind.

I would accept something in those lines to be proof of god´s existence.

[bignickel]

Originally Posted by bignickel
And to simplify my answer my more: Occam's Razor.

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

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

Aliens could reproduce just about all of the above, although "pi's secret message" would be tough. At that point, I'd just go with 'insanity' as the best explanation ("God's sending me secret message through numbers!").
Yes. All of the "evidence" people posted that would convince them of a God can all be explained in other probably more likely scenarios that don't include a "God".
I don't know why you guys are still pursuing this thread. I gave Dustin the answer that he evidently was looking for back on page 4.
I didn't actually win any prize or money. Even a donation in my name to the JREF would have been nice. Oh well.

[Caius Textor]

So Dustin´s agenda is no more. Good for him. That doesn´t settle the question.

[Loss Leader]

I said they should be violations of natural laws. Do you want examples?

- A thrown rock´s trajectory describing the equation y=sinx in polar coordinates and not a parabola.
- Two voltimeters connected to the same circuit giving muttually contradictory readings.
- Making 1kg of iron keep the same nuclear proporties but behave macroscopically as if it were Jell-O.

"God´s hand" would be obvious if those were followed by the very presence of a being stating "I created the universe and I will do such and such with these phenomena" or something of the kind.

I would accept something in those lines to be proof of god´s existence.



Okay. Good to hear. I wouldn't accept any of those as sufficient evidence as they could be performed with equal ease by a sufficiently advanced alien. In fact, that voltmeter one could be done as a magic trick today. But I'm glad you know what would suffice for you.

[Caius Textor]

Sure, quantum effects in equipments could also be due to magic tricks. Rocket lauching could be alien´s job.

Advanced aliens can only work within the boundaries of reality. That means following what is and what isn´t allowed by actual physical law.

It´s kinda obvious that I´m not talking about a single event, or something going on on the beach while I take a bloody stroll.
I´m assuming, it should go without saying, that theses putative phenomena would happen in laboratory condition, we could experiment with them, check for outer sources, check the physical conditions around it etc.

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.

[Caius Textor]

What I don´t know is why people who don´t want to debate the issue continue to do so.
It is also weird why this is so controverted. I thought at first that this was a very natural question, which should be adressed and not avoided. We should SEEK the falsifying test, not run away from it with lame excuses.

It could be aliens? Suppose it weren´t.
It could be drugs? Suppose it weren´t.
It could be a kid playing "Earth" in her Outer Universe videogame? Suppose it weren´t.

It´s that difficult?

[D'rok]

What I don´t know is why people who don´t want to debate the issue continue to do so.
It is also weird why this is so controverted. I thought at first that this was a very natural question, which should be adressed and not avoided. We should SEEK the falsifying test, not run away from it with lame excuses.

It could be aliens? Suppose it weren´t.
It could be drugs? Suppose it weren´t.
It could be a kid playing "Earth" in her Outer Universe videogame? Suppose it weren´t.

It´s that difficult?


The problem is that several of us really did try to honestly address the question only to discover that Dustin wasn't looking for honest answers. This was all foreplay for the money shot of Dustin's own lame attempt at a logical proof of god. After receiving that messy load, I think most of us are just turned off by this thread altogether.

[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://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683191#post2683191
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683329#post2683329
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683540#post2683540
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683569#post2683569
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683603#post2683603
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683633#post2683633
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683809#post2683809
http://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683191#post2683191
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683329#post2683329
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683540#post2683540
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683569#post2683569
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683603#post2683603
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683633#post2683633
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2683809#post2683809
http://forums.randi.org/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"? :rolleyes:

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.

[Complexity]

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


What a fraud! You don't even understand the notation.

I've had beginning programming students write random insult generators that produce statements conveying more meaning that what you can muster.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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

The Cartesian self is concrete truth.


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.

The Cartesian self is a 100% absolute truth. It's the ONLY thing that can be proven to truly exist.

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're making no sense.

What a fraud! You don't even understand the notation.

I've had beginning programming students write random insult generators that produce statements conveying more meaning that what you can muster.

I already explained in detail the notation used in my equation. Your questions concerning the notation didn't even make sense and those that made even a little bit of sense, I answered clearly and concisely. You have kept asserting that my answers were "wrong" but you haven't as of yet explained exactly how they are wrong. You didn't even know what you were asking.

[Complexity]

Dusty - I've been going through the threads you started since you started participating on this forum.

You've always been silly.

As I told you before, you don't have the background to understand a short explanation of why your answers were wrong.

I have no interesting in investing the time needed to educate you on mathematical logic.

Get an ***** book on the subject and read. Do your own work.

You behave like a spoiled child.

Many of your posts over the last few years have been demands that people look up things for you on the internet or explain things to you.

You don't believe in college, you won't educate yourself - what the hell do you expect us to do?

You pretend to knowledge that you don't have and, at this rate, will never attain.

By the way, Dustin - much of my doctoral work and study involved logic and automated reasoning. I do know what I was asking, and I understand how truly inadequate your answers were.

My best advice: Shut up, learn things, think - (lather, rinse,) repeat.

[D'rok]

The Cartesian self is concrete truth.No it isn't. The concrete is not determined through reflection.

The Cartesian self is a 100% absolute truth. It's the ONLY thing that can be proven to truly exist.You sure are fond of unsupportable assertions.

You're making no sense.You are failing to comprehend.

I don't really expect to convince you. Your insistence on maintaining your shaky assumptions around truth, proof and evidence is fundamental to your project - I doubt you will relent.

I'll give you some honest advice - take it or leave it. Do you remember in your "Doubting your Disbelief" thread when I was blathering on about Plato and Hegel and the Subject/Object distinction? I strongly recommend diving into some Hegel. You are attempting something very, very similar. Here is a decent summary of Hegelianism:

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

You don't appear to be familiar with the Subject/Object problem, but it is directly relevant to your project. Hegel proposed the most complete solution - a system of metaphysical "science" that reveals the totality of Being. In other words, Absolute Truth. If you want the abstract to be concrete, I suggest examining Hegel's attempt to make it so. You may find it useful. His masterpiece is "The Phenomenology of Spirit" (alternatively titled "Phenomenology of Mind"). Here it is:

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/Hegel%20Phen%20ToC.htm

For the record, Hegel failed in his attempt to make the "rational real" and he was one of the greatest minds the world has ever known. If you succeed, you will be immortal.


ETA: Hegel's system was the result of a Cartesian journey. He attempted to answer the question, "what is this I that thinks", and in the process claimed to acquire Absolute Knowledge.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dusty - I've been going through the threads you started since you started participating on this forum.

You've always been silly.

As I told you before, you don't have the background to understand a short explanation of why your answers were wrong.

I have no interesting in investing the time needed to educate you on mathematical logic.

Get an ***** book on the subject and read. Do your own work.

You behave like a spoiled child.

Many of your posts over the last few years have been demands that people look up things for you on the internet or explain things to you.

You don't believe in college, you won't educate yourself - what the hell do you expect us to do?

You pretend to knowledge that you don't have and, at this rate, will never attain.

By the way, Dustin - much of my doctoral work and study involved logic and automated reasoning. I do know what I was asking, and I understand how truly inadequate your answers were.

My best advice: Shut up, learn things, think - (lather, rinse,) repeat.


What's that? I stopped reading when I realized you didn't explain how my answers to your questions concerning my notations were wrong.

No it isn't. The concrete is not determined through reflection.

Says who?

You sure are fond of unsupportable assertions.

Try doing some research into philosophy then get back to me. The Cartesian self is a 100% absolute truth. You call this an "unsupportable assertion"? Thought, therefor existence. If thought exists then either I am thinking it or I am perceiving it's existence in either case I personally exist. If I doubt this contention then this also proves I exist because I couldn't doubt if I didn't exist.

[D'rok]

Try doing some research into philosophy then get back to me.

I have a degree in philosophy. I am quite confident that I have done more research than you ever will.

You have put all of your eggs in the deductive reasoning basket, so it is quite unsurprising that you cling to Descartes so rigidly. Unfortunately for you, results come from observation rather than reflection.

Enjoy your Cartesian journey into false certainty.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I have a degree in philosophy. I am quite confident that I have done more research than you ever will.

You might want to get your money back for that.

You have put all of your eggs in the deductive reasoning basket, so it is quite unsurprising that you cling to Descartes so rigidly. Unfortunately for you, results come from observation rather than reflection.

My realization that I exist came from reflection. Inorder to even come to the rational conclusion that you can even observe things outside of your mind and be able to use empiricism or science you must first use deductive reasoning and reflection to build an epistemological base.

Enjoy your Cartesian journey into false certainty.


Can you tell me how my rational for my existence is "false"? No, Of course you can't.

[D'rok]

You might want to get your money back for that.



My realization that I exist came from reflection. Inorder to even come to the rational conclusion that you can even observe things outside of your mind and be able to use empiricism or science you must first use deductive reasoning and reflection to build an epistemological base.




Can you tell me how my rational for my existence is "false"? No, Of course you can't.


Here are some terms that might be helpful for you:

Philosopher:
1.a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.
2. Lover of wisdom (from the Greek)

True believer:
1. a person who has been thoroughly convinced of something.
2. a fanatic, esp. a religious or political one.

Guess which one you are?

It's not your "rational" [sic] that is false; it is your certainty.

Your god is a delusion, your proof is pathetic, and your fanaticism makes you a foolish young man.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Here are some terms that might be helpful for you:

Philosopher:
1.a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.
2. Lover of wisdom (from the Greek)

True believer:
1. a person who has been thoroughly convinced of something.
2. a fanatic, esp. a religious or political one.

Guess which one you are?

Which one? 1 or 2? It's true that I am thoroughly convinced of many things. I'm thoroughly convinced that 1+1=2. If that makes me a "True believer" then I guess that's what I am.

It's not your "rational" [sic] that is false; it is your certainty.

There's nothing wrong with being certain about obvious facts.


Your god is a delusion, your proof is pathetic, and your fanaticism makes you a foolish young man.

Yea, Well...Your Mamma!

[PixyMisa]

The Cartesian self is a 100% absolute truth. It's the ONLY thing that can be proven to truly exist.
Thanks Dustin. Since this contradicts your "proof", I take it we can ignore the whole thing?

I already explained in detail the notation used in my equation.
What is B, Dustin?

[pgwenthold]

One more time:

"Extremelly advanced aliens" must work within the boundaries of reality and actual physical law.

Unfortunately, this is only relevent if you actually KNOW "reality and actual physical law." If someone would have ran a computer off a battery back in 1000CE, the people there would decreed that it was outside the boundaries of physical law, and it would have been, _as they knew it._ Would that have made her a god?

Communication through copper wires? Impossible...

[Loss Leader]

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.


One more time: How will you test to exclude the possibility of advanced alien technology rather than the hand of God?

[Caius Textor]

Unfortunately, this is only relevent if you actually KNOW "reality and actual physical law."

Yes, and we do, to a very large degree. Althought science will not stop discovering for a long time, much of what it has already discovered and explained will remain. We have all reason to believe this tendency will continue over the eons.
Contrary to common belief, science does not change completely form time to time. There is a hard core that stays and there are inconclusive shells that change (such was the nature of eletromagnetic phenomena in the 19th century). We tend to focus only on the edge of science and not on those stablished knowledges which we take for granted.

I cannot, of course, know beforehand how to specifically test any possible "alien technology" that could possibly show up. But they WILL BE testable. They will have to be matter of science, they will have to work in a manner analogous to any other machine or technology. If it is a remote mechanism, a communication medium will have to exist, and we will be forced to find its source. People in 1000AD would reach the same conclusions over time.

Eventually (5000 years? whatever), what is technology will be shown to be so. But what if it isn´t? Our efforts will be useless, there will be nothing to explain. We will be able to use extensive testing to rule out the "alien" hypothesis, just like lack of evidence allowed us to rule out so many other at-the-time good ones.

Now, I know many believers like to point out what they think are "paradoxes" of science and immediately say that "can only be explained by God". There is that whole woo in the University of Oregon. I´m not one of those people and I´m sure that they are speaking out of ignorance (or maybe out of their...). Looking for horns in horse´s heads, as we say in here.
I hope you understand I´m proposing something different altogether.

[10001]

what is proof? have you ever asked your self .. what does people mean by proof... and how many of the 6 billion people agree to a common proof? and why?

god of the bible is not a separate entity, God of the bible and any God thaqt is discribed as the all in one being, omnipotent and so on... is the natur the space the time, you and me and all others... what separates one person from another is ... self indulgence, greed what seems important to an individual.\
people grow... for a reason.
It doesnt matter what anyone believes... or think they are doing...
God, budah nature are all the same. it is people who think they are different.
In essence we are all one, from one, so forth. If anyone say what or who they worship is an individual.. .then ..... they are just worshipping and enslaving them selves to a being that is not all that omnipotent.

[Loss Leader]

what is proof? have you ever asked your self .. what does people mean by proof... and how many of the 6 billion people agree to a common proof? and why?


Proof is whatever type and amount of evidence compels the mind to accept something as true. I don't know about agreement between all six billion residents of earth, but millions of people do agree about various levels of proof. Three hundred million Americans, for example, agree that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for a criminal conviction. Mathematicians for the last several thousand years agree that proof is the required to be the only possible and necessary explanation derived from simple axioms. Scientists demand that there be explanations for all inconsistent results.

So, this issue has actually been very well addressed.


god of the bible is not a separate entity, God of the bible and any God thaqt is discribed as the all in one being, omnipotent and so on... is the natur the space the time, you and me and all others... what separates one person from another is ... self indulgence, greed what seems important to an individual.\
people grow... for a reason.
It doesnt matter what anyone believes... or think they are doing...
God, budah nature are all the same. it is people who think they are different.
In essence we are all one, from one, so forth. If anyone say what or who they worship is an individual.. .then ..... they are just worshipping and enslaving them selves to a being that is not all that omnipotent.


Okay. Thanks for that meaningless rant.

[Caius Textor]

I´m accepting as proof anything that would prove a scientific theory, regardless of individual notions on how science works.

To put it in other words, what makes us (correctly) so sure about gravity or Q.E.D.? I think we need the same kind of empirical evidence backing those theories, mutatis mutandis of course.

[Caius Textor]

Okay. Thanks for that meaningless rant.

You know, I didn´t understand a word of what he wrote.

[Loss Leader]

You know, I didn´t understand a word of what he wrote.


Okay, just to be sociable, I'll try to figure it out.


god of the bible is not a separate entity, God of the bible and any God thaqt is discribed as the all in one being, omnipotent and so on


All of the different conceptions of God in world religion really describe the same single being.


... is the natur the space the time, you and me and all others...


God is everything. He is time and space and even each of us.


what separates one person from another is ... self indulgence, greed what seems important to an individual.\


The reason most people don't feel like part of God is that greed and self-involvement keep them from doing so.


people grow... for a reason.


But the purpose of life is to unselfishly realize that one is a part of God


It doesnt matter what anyone believes... or think they are doing...
God, budah nature are all the same. it is people who think they are different.
In essence we are all one, from one, so forth


Reitterating the point.


If anyone say what or who they worship is an individual.. .then ..... they are just worshipping and enslaving them selves to a being that is not all that omnipotent.


Anyone who defines his religious belief differently is wrong and is enslaved to a false god, much as Teal'c was enslaved to Apothis at the beginning of Stargate: SG1.

Okay, I threw in that last part.

[Broes]

An entity with powers far more superious then us humans can always claim to be "god".

However, he (or she) can never prove to us that he (or she) is the only of his (or her) kind.
Also, he (or she) might prove that he (or she) is more superiour then humans but he (or she) can not prove to us that he (or she) is "almighty".

Give a gun, a flashlight and a ghettoblaster...
Send me back 2000 years in time and I will be god on earth!... :D
Till I run out of bullets and batteries... :(

Bruce Jongejans

[bignickel]

Ok you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick!
-Ash, "Army of Darkness"

[thaiboxerken]

Why is it that Dustin's "proofs of god" consist of fallacies and semantical arguments of the words "knowledge" "reality" "evidence" and "proof?"

[PixyMisa]

In essence, it's a Cargo Cult proof. Dustin has duplicated the surface properties of proofs, so he has something that looks as much like a proof as a cleared stretch of dirt and a bamboo hut on stilts looks like a landing field. Of course, he's left out all the bits that actually matter, like logic and fact.

He's very hung up on appearances, as for example his appeal to dictionary entries as definitive formal statements.

[andyandy]

In essence, it's a Cargo Cult proof. Dustin has duplicated the surface properties of proofs, so he has something that looks as much like a proof as a cleared stretch of dirt and a bamboo hut on stilts looks like a landing field. Of course, he's left out all the bits that actually matter, like logic and fact.

He's very hung up on appearances, as for example his appeal to dictionary entries as definitive formal statements.

it's gone very quiet - i think dustin might have abandoned his sinking ship :)