What would you accept as PROOF of a God? [Archive]

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 05:46 PM

I honestly don't know what would convince me that God exists. Maybe something like in Contact, with messages encoded into the decimal (or base-n) expansion of mathematical or physical constants. There's still a very very slim chance it could be a coincidence, and it's also possible that the author of such a message might not match your definition of "God," but at the very least it would probably convince me that there was an intelligence outside the universe, most likely responsible for creating it.

This really won't work either. Unless you can prove it's coming from "Outside of the universe" (which I see no way of doing) and unless you can prove the origin of this message is the creator of the universe (which I see no way of doing) then such a message really proves nothing more than someone intelligent is sending a message from far away. Maybe aliens in this universe. Maybe beings outside of it. But "God"? How would this be proven?

I think your question is moot, however. If God exists, presumably he already knows what it would take to convince me. If he wants me to believe he exists, he has my number.

Maybe he does maybe he doesn't. Maybe he can't. Maybe he doesn't want to.

Lisa Simpson

6th June 2007, 05:47 PM

Maybe he prays to "God" and it regrows but "God" didn't cause it to regrow. Possibly he has some unconscious supernatural ability to heal himself but he believes "God" did it.
Possibly some other powerful being did it who answered his prayer but isn't "God".
Possibly he is the first person to be able to grow limbs back due to some natural genetic ability.

So that can't be "Proof".

:eek: :boggled: :jaw-dropp

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 05:48 PM

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

How about inductive?

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 05:49 PM

:eek: :boggled: :jaw-dropp

Really. Can you think of anything that would convince you of the existence of a God? If some guy praying for a limb to grow back then it growing back convinces you then you must be very credulous given the number of alternatives which are given the circumstances just as likely as a "God" doing it.

D'rok

6th June 2007, 05:50 PM

How about inductive?
Then that wouldn't be a proof - it would be at best a probability.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 05:55 PM

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

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

cbish

6th June 2007, 06:01 PM

D'rok

6th June 2007, 06:05 PM

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

I'm having trouble thinking of something that you wouldn't dismiss in the same fashion as toddjh and Lisa's examples.

I imagine that if I came into the physical presence of god, it would be pretty darn obvious. So, assuming that god exists, I suppose that if he/she/it physically manifested him/her/itself to me and declared "I am the lord, your god", I would be pretty darn convinced.

But even this could be explained by saying that it was simply E.T. wielding technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic.

Actually, I would find Lisa's example quite compelling.

Maybe you could answer your own question and let us evaluate your criteria of proof?

D'rok

6th June 2007, 06:06 PM

maatorc

6th June 2007, 06:13 PM

I asked this question in another thread and didn't get any real answers. Here's the question: What would you accept as PROOF of a God? God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

"God" is just a word to express that which IS.

The word used does not in any way change what it IS you are referring to.

Any real discussion is already dead in the water by here 'defining' God, as 'being' before the universe and therefore subject to 'time'.

If, as has been put forward, at the moment of the start of the universe it consisted entirely of pure energy, then God IS Energy, and God IS the universe, and the universe IS energy.

Gertrude

6th June 2007, 06:17 PM

The very definition of god make it unprovable. If it is transcendant to us, to our senses and logic, then by definition we can't prove it. All we have is theses senses and that logic. Something transcendant will never be proven by those means.

Darth Rotor

6th June 2007, 06:24 PM

An amputee prays to god and gets his/her missing limb regrown. That would be a nice start.
While some will say that is not rigorous enough for proof, I am willing to bet that such an event would add to the population of believers. :cool:

DR

kinkymagic

6th June 2007, 06:26 PM

Two nubile, willing blonde 18 year olds outside my door right ow would do nicely.

Alas...

strathmeyer

6th June 2007, 06:28 PM

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?

Any evidence at all.

largeprimenumber

6th June 2007, 06:28 PM

David Hume's already been where you're going. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Miracles)

The closest I can come to answering your question is that if the evidence for God overwhelms the evidence against, then that might function as "proof"--or at least makes the existence of god more likely than not.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 06:55 PM

How about one night, the stars line up and spell out " Jesus Lives"! It doesn't matter what time of year or in which hemisphere, professional and amatuer astronomers would capture the event ad nauseum! It would be the biggest news event ever! That would do it for me!

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.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 06:57 PM

I'm having trouble thinking of something that you wouldn't dismiss in the same fashion as toddjh and Lisa's examples.

I imagine that if I came into the physical presence of god, it would be pretty darn obvious. So, assuming that god exists, I suppose that if he/she/it physically manifested him/her/itself to me and declared "I am the lord, your god", I would be pretty darn convinced.

But even this could be explained by saying that it was simply E.T. wielding technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic.

Actually, I would find Lisa's example quite compelling.

Maybe you could answer your own question and let us evaluate your criteria of proof?

I'm the one asking the questions here. It would say something of your credulity if you accepted the scenario that Lisa provided as proof of a God.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 06:59 PM

If it is transcendant to us, to our senses and logic, then by definition we can't prove it.

Who said God was "Transcendent" to us? The definition I provided doesn't state that.

All we have is theses senses and that logic. Something transcendant will never be proven by those means.

If God is sufficiently powerful then there's nothing stopping him from making us able to understand or comprehend his proof. So that won't work.

D'rok

6th June 2007, 07:00 PM

I'm the one asking the questions here. It would say something of your credulity if you accepted the scenario that Lisa provided as proof of a God.

You know, even Socrates eventually stopped JAQing off and actually said what he believed. How 'bout it sport?

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:00 PM

Any evidence at all.

Which would include...? Specifically? :confused:

Complexity

6th June 2007, 07:07 PM

The concept of proof isn't relevant to your question. It has meaning in logic and mathematics, not in science, philosophy, or religion.

The word you're looking for is 'evidence', and the question is what would be enough evidence to persuade me that there is a god.

I don't think I could be persuaded that there is a god. I would find it much more likely that I was being fooled, tricked, or delusional than that there was a god.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:18 PM

The concept of proof isn't relevant to your question. It has meaning in logic and mathematics, not in science, philosophy, or religion.

1. "Proof" and "Evidence" are often synonymous.

2.'Logic' isn't used in science or philosophy?

The word you're looking for is 'evidence', and the question is what would be enough evidence to persuade me that there is a god.

That would work as well.

I don't think I could be persuaded that there is a god. I would find it much more likely that I was being fooled, tricked, or delusional than that there was a god.

So how are you different from the creationist who says "I don't think I could be persuaded that Evolution occurs"? He is close minded and has no justification for denying Evolution if he can't even make it clear what would convince him of Evolution.

Beleth

6th June 2007, 07:22 PM

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?
Asked and answered. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2535125#post2535125)

bignickel

6th June 2007, 07:24 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:24 PM

Asked and answered. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2535125#post2535125)

I have thought about this a lot.

There is an event that could happen which I would consider proof of the existence of a personal God. But it is personal, so telling anyone what it is would invalidate it as evidence. And no, I'm not being flippant; this is my actual answer. All I will say is that setting it up would cost nothing and be doable in 10-15 minutes.

I have told God what this event is. I am telling Him now, even as I type this. Only He and I know, and so the ball is in His court.

This isn't an answer to the question. I asked what would convince you of a "God" and you say "I won't answer" and claim this is an answer? :confused:

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:27 PM

I am an agnostic: as a finite being in the universe, I am unable to recognize a being that exists outside it; I do not have the ability to accurately identify a such a being outside my sphere(creator of the universe, and ruler, would necessitate it existing outside of it, at least. otherwise, he is subject to it's laws, such as entropy).

Being a sufficiently powerful being, "God" could enter this universe and temporarily bend the laws to his will, considering he created them.

Otherwise this seems like an argument from incredulity.

Therefore, no evidence could convince me of god/'s existence. There would always be a better in-universe explanation. Coincidence, pranks, aliens... all would be better explanations. Ultimately, 'insanity' would be the last explanation that any such evidence would have to counter, and due to Occam's Razor, 'god/s existence' would lose everytime.

So how are you different from the creationist who says "no evidence could convince me of evolutions existence"? No amount of evidence you give him will convince him. He is close minded and has no justification for denying Evolution if he can't even make it clear what would convince him of Evolution.

D'rok

6th June 2007, 07:28 PM

Is this thread going anywhere?

Beleth

6th June 2007, 07:29 PM

This isn't an answer to the question. I asked what would convince you of a "God" and you say "I won't answer" and claim this is an answer? :confused:
The answer to the question "What would convince me of a God?" is "the event I have told Him would convince me". It is not "I won't answer".

It is an unfortunate side effect of my answer that I can't tell you the details of it, but that doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:31 PM

Is this thread going anywhere?

It's the buildup.

Beleth

6th June 2007, 07:32 PM

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

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:32 PM

The answer to the question "What would convince me of a God?" is "the event I have told Him would convince me". It is not "I won't answer".

It is an unfortunate side effect of my answer that I can't tell you the details of it, but that doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

"The event I have told Him would convince me" doesn't answer the question since the 'event' is undefined. If the 'event' is undefined then the answer is undefined thus isn't an answer at all. Unless you can explain WHAT this event is, I see no reason why I shouldn't dismiss it.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:33 PM

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

How would you prove such an observation wasn't a hallucination? I'm some LSD trippers have 'observed universes being created'.

Beleth

6th June 2007, 07:38 PM

"The event I have told Him would convince me" doesn't answer the question since the 'event' is undefined.
Believe me, the event is extremely well-defined. If it weren't well-defined, it would not be as compelling a proof to me when it happened.

If the 'event' is undefined then the answer is undefined thus isn't an answer at all.The event, as I said, is not undefined.

Unless you can explain WHAT this event is, I see no reason why I shouldn't dismiss it.I see that statement as neither a rational stance for you to take nor a compelling reason for me to divulge the nature of the event.

Ginarley

6th June 2007, 07:38 PM

As with anything, I would need something that was positive evidence for the existence of whatever it is (your definition is pretty vague after all). All the evidence to date attempts to disprove alternative theories rather than to prove that a god exists directly. What specific form such evidence would take is entirely dependent on whatever this god actually is.

D'rok

6th June 2007, 07:38 PM

It's the buildup.

Well call me Glaucon, I await your revelations o' master of elenchus.

Beleth

6th June 2007, 07:39 PM

How would you prove such an observation wasn't a hallucination? I'm some LSD trippers have 'observed universes being created'.
A hallucination isn't real.

Less flippant answer:
LSD is detectable in one's bloodstream, and from what I hear makes other hallucinations as well. If I see a universe get created, and right before (or after) get tested for hallucinogens in my system, and the rest of the day goes by as I would expect, then I would have every reason to rule out a hallucinogen as the source of my observation.

Bob Klase

6th June 2007, 07:41 PM

If some guy praying for a limb to grow back then it growing back convinces you then you must be very credulous given the number of alternatives which are given the circumstances just as likely as a "God" doing it.

Really? Can you give us just one single documented instance of a human limb growing back- ever? If not then I would say that up to now the number of alternatives are exactly zero.

Future progress in science and medicine may change that, and likely in the near future. Until then, time is running out for god to use that as evidence of his existence.

Bob Klase

6th June 2007, 07:48 PM

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

Why does he have to prove it to anyone? Your question asked what he (or we) would accept as proof. If he accepts it as proof there's no need for him to prove to you that what he's accepted is correct.

It seems that now you want to change your question from "What would you accept as PROOF of a God?" to "How would you prove to Dustin that you have proof that there's a god".

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:48 PM

Believe me, the event is extremely well-defined. If it weren't well-defined, it would not be as compelling a proof to me when it happened.

Well since you won't divulge it I can't comment on it and you can't use it as an answer.

The event, as I said, is not undefined.

Ok.

A hallucination isn't real.

Really???

Less flippant answer:
LSD is detectable in one's bloodstream, and from what I hear makes other hallucinations as well. If I see a universe get created, and right before (or after) get tested for hallucinogens in my system, and the rest of the day goes by as I would expect, then I would have every reason to rule out a hallucinogen as the source of my observation.

LSD can be tested but it's not the only thing that causes hallucinations. They can occur naturally.

Beleth

6th June 2007, 07:49 PM

Why does he have to prove it to anyone? Your question asked what would be proof to convince him. If he accepts it as proof there's no need for him to prove to you that what he's accepted is correct.

It seems that now you want to change your question from "What would you accept as PROOF of a God?" to "How would you prove to Dustin that you have proof that there's a god".
Exactly my observation also, and very well put, Bob.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:50 PM

Really? Can you give us just one single documented instance of a human limb growing back- ever? If not then I would say that up to now the number of alternatives are exactly zero.

Can you give me an example of a documented instance of a human limb growing back due to prayer to God? Ever? If not then I would say that up to now the number of possibility of such is exactly zero.

Future progress in science and medicine may change that, and likely in the near future. Until then, time is running out for god to use that as evidence of his existence.

You didn't address my other possibilities.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:51 PM

Why does he have to prove it to anyone? Your question asked what he (or we) would accept as proof. If he accepts it as proof there's no need for him to prove to you that what he's accepted is correct.

If he can't prove to me that it wasn't an illusion or dream then how can he prove it to himself?

It seems that now you want to change your question from "What would you accept as PROOF of a God?" to "How would you prove to Dustin that you have proof that there's a god".

Not at all. I'm just saying that if one can't prove (in general, not to me) that something isn't a dream or illusion then how can they prove it to themselves?

Beleth

6th June 2007, 07:53 PM

Well since you won't divulge it I can't comment on it and you can't use it as an answer.
Sure I can. It answers the question "What would Beleth accept as proof of God?" precisely and succinctly.

What it doesn't answer is the question "What can Beleth say that would convince Dustin that God is provable?", and, since I cannot read your mind, I see no benefit to even attempting to answer that question.

Darth Rotor

6th June 2007, 07:58 PM

It seems that now you want to change your question from "What would you accept as PROOF of a God?" to "How would you prove to Dustin that you have proof that there's a god".
I'd buy a bottle of Mezcal, about 100 proof, and after Dustin and I shared it, I'd let him eat the worm. :)

That might be the kind of proof he would accept. :D

DR

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 07:59 PM

I'd buy a bottle of Mezcal, about 100 proof, and after Dustin and I shared it, I'd let him eat the worm. :)

That might be the kind of proof he would accept. :D

DR

I don't drink anything lower than 150.

Darth Rotor

6th June 2007, 08:02 PM

I don't drink anything lower than 150.

How manly, and also sad. The flavor of the 80-100 proof range stuff is superior to the pure burn of 151 and things like grain. Enjoy the ride, that's my suggestion.

To each his own.

In any case, have some Mezcal, it's a nice variation on the theme. Bring plenty of limes.

Eating the worm transcends % alcohol.

DR

Apathia

6th June 2007, 08:14 PM

Foster Zygote

6th June 2007, 08:16 PM

How manly, and also sad. The flavor of the 80-100 proof range stuff is superior to the pure burn of 151 and things like grain. Enjoy the ride, that's my suggestion.

To each his own.

In any case, have some Mezcal, it's a nice variation on the theme. Bring plenty of limes.

Eating the worm transcends % alcohol.

DR

151 proof. Pfft. It's naught but a cocktail of lacquer thinner, toluene and hydrogen peroxide with a chaser of methyl-ethyl ketone for manly, hairy-chest thumpin' men like me.

Darth Rotor

6th June 2007, 08:19 PM

151 proof. Pfft. It's naught but a cocktail of lacquer thinner, toluene and hydrogen peroxide with a chaser of methyl-ethyl ketone for manly, hairy-chest thumpin' men like me.
I see we have an Everclear fan in our midst. Good for the burn, but not the flavor, to my palate.

What's your take on the Jeremiah Weed?

DR

strathmeyer

6th June 2007, 08:27 PM

Which would include...? Specifically? :confused:

Any evidence at all. How more specific can I get?

Beleth

6th June 2007, 08:30 PM

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 08:41 PM

And so the goalpost began running around the field.

No. I asked what everyone here would accept as proof of a God. He provided an example and I pointed out how it would not be valid proof of a God and if he accepts such as proof he must be gullible.

Any evidence at all. How more specific can I get?

A lot more specific. What would you consider evidence? Give me an example.

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

Yes. That I am. Cogito, Ergo Sum.

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

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

D'rok

6th June 2007, 08:45 PM

Yes. That I am. Cogito, Ergo Sum.

But what is this "I" that thinks?

(That wasn't much of a revelation after all this buildup. Glaucon is disappointed)

Beleth

6th June 2007, 08:51 PM

Yes. That I am. Cogito, Ergo Sum.
What evidence is there of that, that can't be explained by a hallucination?

You're dealing with two different circumstances. One which is (from your perspective) very common and everyday and another which would be so uncommon the only reasonable explanation would be hallucination. I COULD be hallucinating as we speak and could be sitting outside in a stupor but what I'm doing is what I do often and due to no evidence to the contrary I must assume it is real which would fall within Occam's razor.
But perhaps you are just hallucinating that what you are doing is common and everyday, when what you are really doing is lying in a hospital room with an IV drip of LSD going straight into your veins.

If I were witnessing a universe being created I would realize that this goes against everything I know to be possible and anything I've ever experienced and thus could conclude it to be a hallucination and with Occam's razor that would be the most reasonable conclusion.
But what if you were just hallucinating that it went against everything you've ever experienced yada yada yada...

Do you see my point? Saying "Maybe you are hallucinating" makes every argument, every bit of evidence, come crashing down. It is therefore totally useless as a counterargument to any specific scenario.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 09:09 PM

But what is this "I" that thinks?

(That wasn't much of a revelation after all this buildup. Glaucon is disappointed)

There's no "I" there. "Cogito" simply means "Thought" not "I think" as commonly translated in English."

PixyMisa

6th June 2007, 09:10 PM

As strathmeyer said, any evidence at all would be nice.

If God walked among us, suspending the laws of physics as a personal favour to petitioners, restoring the dead to life and so on, then you get into walks-like-a-duck territory.

But there's a better answer: Define "God", Dustin, and we'll tell you what evidence would suffice to bring us to consider such a creature as likely. Without knowing what attributes you believe it has, we can't say.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 09:13 PM

What evidence is there of that, that can't be explained by a hallucination?

Hallucinations require thought. Rocks don't hallucinate. Therefore if one is hallucinating one must exist. "Nothing" can't hallucinate after all.

But perhaps you are just hallucinating that what you are doing is common and everyday, when what you are really doing is lying in a hospital room with an IV drip of LSD going straight into your veins.

What I'm doing is what I do often and due to no evidence to the contrary I must assume it is real which would fall within Occam's razor.

But what if you were just hallucinating that it went against everything you've ever experienced yada yada yada...

I don't believe hallucinations work that way. Changes the way one perceives past incidences or ones past knowledge. However we can only work within our frame of reference. Right now as I type I am experiencing something that 'may' be a hallucination however I dismiss the fact because there currently is no reason to believe it's a hallucination and it's not so odd or uncommon or out of the ordinary to give me a reason to believe it is a hallucination.

Do you see my point? Saying "Maybe you are hallucinating" makes every argument, every bit of evidence, come crashing down. It is therefore totally useless as a counterargument to any specific scenario.

Only some arguments.

Loss Leader

6th June 2007, 09:13 PM

I'm just saying that if one can't prove (in general, not to me) that something isn't a dream or illusion then how can they prove it to themselves?

That's exactly what the world needs - objective criteria for subjective beliefs.

I just wish someone would prove to me that he is a true Scotsman.

D'rok

6th June 2007, 09:14 PM

There's no "I" there. "Cogito" simply means "Thought" not "I think" as commonly translated in English."

But....

Yes. That I am. Cogito, Ergo Sum.

There's one there.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 09:15 PM

As strathmeyer said, any evidence at all would be nice.

This is too vague to mean anything. One must be very specific as to what evidence one would require to believe in a God. Saying "any evidence" doesn't answer the question and leaves the answer undefined.

If God walked among us, suspending the laws of physics as a personal favour to petitioners, restoring the dead to life and so on, then you get into walks-like-a-duck territory.

Except I'm sure there are numerous "deities" in various beliefs who could do the same thing but aren't defined as "God" as in creators of the universe.

But there's a better answer: Define "God", Dustin, and we'll tell you what evidence would suffice to bring us to consider such a creature as likely. Without knowing what attributes you believe it has, we can't say.

I did in the original post.

God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

PixyMisa

6th June 2007, 09:16 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 09:19 PM

But....

There's one there.

No. I'm saying that in "Cogito, Ergo sum" there isn't necessarily an "I" however the argument itself can prove ones own existence. If thought exists even if you aren't the thinker then it must be perceived, if it's being perceived then someone has to be perceiving it and since you're experiencing the perception you must exist to do so. Though a lot more than this can be deduced from "Cogito, Ergo sum.

P.S. We're still in the build up phase.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 09:22 PM

Sorry, I'll modify my previous post:

Define God in empirical terms. In attributes we can observe, directly or indirectly. Because all that we can know comes from what we observe, any evidence for God must be empirical. The creation of the unvierse, lying as it does outside of space and time, is necessarily outside of empiricism.

You're not making much sense here. I'm defining "God" as the dictionary dictates not as anything else. All you know must come from what you observe? Not necessarily true. Most deductive reasoning doesn't work this way. Nor do A-priori conclusions about the world.

So, if God is the ruler of the universe, what does he do? If we find evidence that what you say he does is in fact happening, and there is no simpler and more useful explanation, then maybe that will constitute evidence for God.

Sometimes a ruler doesn't exercise his rule. Sometimes he does nothing.

Perhaps God can exercise his rule using the laws of physics as his mechanism. Meaning he manipulates events in such a way we can't necessarily predict his presence simply from his actions alone.

D'rok

6th June 2007, 09:24 PM

No. I'm saying that in "Cogito, Ergo sum" there isn't necessarily an "I" however the argument itself can prove ones own existence. If thought exists even if you aren't the thinker then it must be perceived, if it's being perceived then someone has to be perceiving it and since you're experiencing the perception you must exist to do so. Though a lot more than this can be deduced from "Cogito, Ergo sum.

Which brings us back to my original question, paraphrased as what is this perceiver that perceives?

P.S. We're still in the build up phase.

Good to hear. Glaucon's expectations are quite high.

PixyMisa

6th June 2007, 09:30 PM

You're not making much sense here. I'm defining "God" as the dictionary dictates not as anything else.
The dictionary definition is, as is so often the case, useless for a technical discussion.

All you know must come from what you observe?Yep.
Not necessarily true. Most deductive reasoning doesn't work this way.Deductive reasoning - unless it is based on something you have observed - tells you nothing. Remember that arguments aren't evidence.

Sometimes a ruler doesn't exercise his rule. Sometimes he does nothing.If he does nothing, then what is the difference between that and not existing?

Perhaps God can exercise his rule using the laws of physics as his mechanism.That would be Deism. What is the difference between that and not existing?

Meaning he manipulates events in such a way we can't necessarily predict his presence simply from his actions alone.Does he manipulate events or not? QM is very well defined; if it was being manipulated, we'd know. If quantum mechanical processes were consistently being manipulated to produces specific and desirable macro-scale events; if this was apparently being done by a being who walked among us and took requests from petitioners and claimed to be your God, then we'd be back in walks-like-a-duck territory. If that's what you claim your God to do, and something appears that does that, might as well call it God.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 09:33 PM

Which brings us back to my original question, paraphrased as what is this perceiver that perceives?

Without getting into anything deeper in this thread, Let's just stick with a "perceiver".

Complexity

6th June 2007, 09:34 PM

1. "Proof" and "Evidence" are often synonymous.

No, they're not synonymous. Proof provides certainty relative to a set of axioms. Evidence may support a model, but no accumulation of evidence can provide certainty. Science is a realm in which there is no certainty, regardless of the strength of the evidence.

2.'Logic' isn't used in science or philosophy?

The validity of a proof is only as good as the validity of its premisses. Neither science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs. I doubt that they ever will be.

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

So how are you different from the creationist who says "I don't think I could be persuaded that Evolution occurs"? He is close minded and has no justification for denying Evolution if he can't even make it clear what would convince him of Evolution.

I have great respect for the concept of proof, where it is relevant, and where it is not. I've already said that I don't think that 'proof' has any meaning in science or philosophy (including religion).

You asked what I would accept as PROOF of the existence of a god.

There can be no proof of the existence of a god.
There can be no proof of evolution.

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

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

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

I know that my thinking is flawed, that I am ignorant of most things, that I can be tricked, that I can deceive myself, and that I am often irrational.

I share these shortcomings with everyone.

I also know that I and many others take medication for approximating mental health.

There is no certainty in mathematics; there certainly is none in the rest of the world.

If the only evidence for the existence of a god is a phenomenon that I experience, I suggest that it is far more likely that my perceptions and thinking are flawed than that there is a god.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 09:39 PM

The dictionary definition is, as is so often the case, useless for a technical discussion.

How's that?

Deductive reasoning - unless it is based on something you have observed - tells you nothing.

No. It's based on premises which may be true.

Remember that arguments aren't evidence.

They're not just 'evidence' they're proof if the premises are true and reasoning valid.

If he does nothing, then what is the difference between that and not existing?

Is 'existing' a verb? :confused:

That would be Deism. What is the difference between that and not existing?

Existing.

Does he manipulate events or not?

Perhaps he can cause something to occur for which we would normally define as "natural" but which was his own doing.

QM is very well defined; if it was being manipulated, we'd know.

How?

If quantum mechanical processes were consistently being manipulated to produces specific and desirable macro-scale events; if this was apparently being done by a being who walked among us and took requests from petitioners and claimed to be your God, then we'd be back in walks-like-a-duck territory.

1. How could we tell if the QM processes are being "manipulated"?

2.How can we identify such a being doing the manipulating? Is "God" the only imagined being who can? I can imagine "Being A" who can alter QM processes and produce desirable macro scale events to peoples favor but isn't the creator if the universe.

If that's what you claim your God to do, and something appears that does that, might as well call it God.

Except we can't prove such a being (as you described above) made the universe which is the most important aspect of being "God" as I defined in my original post.

Tony

6th June 2007, 09:46 PM

10 million dollars in 100 dollar bills suddenly appearing in my lap.

Foster Zygote

6th June 2007, 09:46 PM

I see we have an Everclear fan in our midst. Good for the burn, but not the flavor, to my palate.

What's your take on the Jeremiah Weed?

DR

In all seriousness, I'll take the mellow flavor of oak over carburetor cleaner any day.

Dustin Kesselberg

6th June 2007, 09:49 PM

No, they're not synonymous. Proof provides certainty relative to a set of axioms. Evidence may support a model, but no accumulation of evidence can provide certainty. Science is a realm in which there is no certainty, regardless of the strength of the evidence.

Proof-
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

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

The validity of a proof is only as good as the validity of its premisses. Neither science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs. I doubt that they ever will be.

Explain how science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs.

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

How can science use logic if as you say "science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs."?

Moreover, Explain what you mean by "suggestive rather than conclusive".

You asked what I would accept as PROOF of the existence of a god.

There can be no proof of the existence of a god.
There can be no proof of evolution.

Explain how ERV's don't prove evolution.

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

Which is proof.

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

Persuasive according to whom?

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

Give an example.

I know that my thinking is flawed, that I am ignorant of most things, that I can be tricked, that I can deceive myself, and that I am often irrational.

I share these shortcomings with everyone.

I also know that I and many others take medication for approximating mental health.

What sort of mental illness do you have?

There is no certainty in mathematics; there certainly is none in the rest of the real world.

1+1=2 isn't a certainty?

If the only evidence for the existence of a god is a phenomenon that I experience, I suggest that it is far more likely that my perceptions and thinking are flawed than that there is a god.

Why hold God to such high standards and not everything else? Like let's say...Evolution? The evidence for anything (from your perception) is a phenomenon that you experience, Why isn't it far more likely that your perceptions and thinking are flawed in other cases aside from God?

D'rok

6th June 2007, 09:49 PM

Without getting into anything deeper in this thread, Let's just stick with a "perceiver".

Yes, we wouldn't want you to lead us out of the Cave too quickly...we might get blinded by the sun. :rolleyes:

Foster Zygote

6th June 2007, 09:50 PM

Actually, I don't know that anything would "prove" a god or gods to me. If there was a lot of evidence for a god or gods I would accept the existence of said god/s provisionally, pending further evidence. In other words, pretty much just like everything else in the universe.

Puppycow

6th June 2007, 09:50 PM

Personally I'm an agnostic. I wouldn't need absolute PROOF to believe in a God, I think I would accept a "preponderance of the evidence." A coherant, understandable account that agrees with scientific and other evidence, and which is not rife with obvious fallacies and incredible claims without evidence such as can be found in the "holy scriptures" I've encountered.

PixyMisa

6th June 2007, 09:53 PM

How's that?
It's not an operative definition, so it can't be related to empirical evidence.

No. It's based on premises which may be true.If you make a valid deduction based on premises that may be true, you have a conclusion that may be true. You don't know anything new; you've merely added another proposition to your collection.

A valid deduction based on premises observed to be true generates a new fact.

They're not just 'evidence' they're proof if the premises are true and reasoning valid.They're not evidence at all, Dustin.

The conclusion may be evidence, if it is valid and sound. The argument is only ever an argument.

Is 'existing' a verb? :confused:It is now.

Existing.How can you tell? You've just posited that there is no difference between God and the unguided rules of physics. In what sense does God then exist, and how do you know?

Perhaps he can cause something to occur for which we would normally define as "natural" but which was his own doing.As above.

How?

1. How could we tell if the QM processes are being "manipulated"?Statistically. So the evidence would be inductive, rather than deductive, but if you're dealing with the real world that will invariably be the case.

2.How can we identify such a being doing the manipulating? Is "God" the only imagined being who can? I can imagine "Being A" who can alter QM processes and produce desirable macro scale events to peoples favor but isn't the creator if the universe.If Being A can arbitrarily manipulate QM events to its whim, and also claims to be the creator of the universe, what reason do you have for doubt?

As I said, this doesn't constitute proof, merely that if we have something with the observable attributes assigned to God which also claims to be God, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is God.

Except we can't prove such a being (as you described above) made the universe which is the most important aspect of being "God" as I defined in my original post.Of course not. As I have explained, it is impossible to do so. Our knowledge is bounded by space-time, and the creation of space-time is obviously outside of space-time itself, so we can never prove or even show inductively that something existing inside of space-time (even partly) was the Creator.

That's why your initial definition is useless.

PixyMisa

6th June 2007, 09:57 PM

Just on the word "existing": The dictionary says that this usage is correct - and is an adjective. Which makes sense, after you think about it for a bit.

Gertrude

6th June 2007, 09:59 PM

Who said God was "Transcendent" to us? The definition I provided doesn't state that.
:jaw-dropp What? Are you saying that god cannot be transcendant to us???

If God is sufficiently powerful then there's nothing stopping him from making us able to understand or comprehend his proof. So that won't work.
What if he doesn't want to?

Complexity

6th June 2007, 10:17 PM

Proof-
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

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

Quit relying on inadequate dictionaries for technical terminology.

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

Explain how science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs.

No. Do your own work.

You're making Eliza sound like a brilliant conversationalist.

How can science use logic if as you say "science nor philosophy has been well founded, systematized, and formalized sufficiently to enable the use of logic to provide persuasive proofs."?

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

Moreover, Explain what you mean by "suggestive rather than conclusive".

No. Use a dictionary and give it some thought.

Explain how ERV's don't prove evolution.

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

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

No, strong and persuasive evidence is not proof.

To: There is no strong or persuasive evidence that a god exists.
Persuasive according to whom?

To me, of course.

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

Give an example.

Nah - there's no point.

What sort of mental illness do you have?

I take meds for depression, OCD, and anxiety.

Think of me as the love child of Monk and House.

What sort of mental illness do you have?

1+1=2 isn't a certainty?

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

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

Why hold God to such high standards and not everything else? Like let's say...Evolution? The evidence for anything (from your perception) is a phenomenon that you experience, Why isn't it far more likely that your perceptions and thinking are flawed in other cases aside from God?

I hold everything to the same standards.

The evidence for evolution is objective, shared, accessible, and reproducible. The evidence for god is subjective, personal, anecdotal, inaccessible to others, and not reproducible.

If you claim to have interacted with a god, I have no way of verifying what you claim.

If you claim to have evidence that supports or contradicts evolution, that evidence can be examined by others, with the theory of evolution being strengthened, weakened, or unaffected as a result.

bignickel

6th June 2007, 11:17 PM

Being a sufficiently powerful being, "God" could enter this universe and temporarily bend the laws to his will, considering he created them.
Otherwise this seems like an argument from incredulity.
Well, yes to the first part, and 'huh?' to the 2nd part. Yes because that was my point about it at least being outside the universe. Entering our universe: I have no problem with. But a part of it would definitely have to be outside our universe. This sets up the next part: my inability to properly recognize something outside our universe.

So how are you different from the creationist who says "no evidence could convince me of evolutions existence"? No amount of evidence you give him will convince him. He is close minded and has no justification for denying Evolution if he can't even make it clear what would convince him of Evolution.
Well, since you're asking me a question about how I'm different than him, I'd say it's because I recognize my inability to recognize the evidence, evidence of a particular being outside our universe. The evidence that the creationist is denying is all evidence inside our universe. Not only that, evidence all here on earth. Processes that are actually going on right now.

Now, if a creationist admitted that his inability to process such earth-bound evidence, I would respect his honesty. Haven't met any yet that would admit as such though. I myself don't understand everything there is to know about quantum physics, but I don't feel a desire to fight to have my alternate "tiny beach-balls" theory of physics taught in public high schools in the interest of fairness.

skeptigator

7th June 2007, 07:11 AM

toddjh

7th June 2007, 09:16 AM

This really won't work either. Unless you can prove it's coming from "Outside of the universe" (which I see no way of doing) and unless you can prove the origin of this message is the creator of the universe (which I see no way of doing) then such a message really proves nothing more than someone intelligent is sending a message from far away.

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

There would be no way you could fake such a message, and there's no way such a message could be written by anyone currently within our universe. At the very least it would be proof of what we might call a "transcendent extradimensional intelligence" -- close enough to God for government work. I can tell you one thing: it would sure get me interested in what the message said.

1. "Proof" and "Evidence" are often synonymous.

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

There's no "I" there. "Cogito" simply means "Thought" not "I think" as commonly translated in English.

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

D'rok

7th June 2007, 09:48 AM

Loss Leader

7th June 2007, 10:05 AM

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

Darn right they're not. But I'd say that proof is a standard of evidence. It's the sum total of all the evidence you need to consider a thing to be true. Dustin even agrees, citing the definition: "Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." The trick, if there is one, is that the matter turns on what is sufficient to establish a thing as true.

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

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

For example, a person may be found liable for damages for a fight even though there is massive amounts of contradictory evidence in the form of his own testimony blaming the other guy for starting it. In his criminal trial, the tolerance for contradictory evidence shrinks so that a jury might discard the fact that the state says the fights started at 10:00 p.m. but three witnesses say it was after 10:15. Scientists generally dislike contradictory evidence and absolutely must explain it away in order for their theories to hold up. And in logic, the existence of contradictory evidence must be impossible.

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

D'rok

7th June 2007, 10:18 AM

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

Personally, I think Dustin sees himself as Socrates. These threads are his attempt at elenchus, this forum is his agorah, and we are his interlocutors.

Frankly, it's a piss-poor performance.

Piscivore

7th June 2007, 10:22 AM

An amputee prays to god and gets his/her missing limb regrown. That would be a nice start.

Piffle. Mr. Dark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_Wicked_This_Way_Comes_%281983_film%29) can do as much.

JoeTheJuggler

7th June 2007, 10:22 AM

PixyMisa

7th June 2007, 10:25 AM

Personally, I think Dustin sees himself as Socrates. These threads are his attempt at elenchus, this forum is his agorah, and we are his interlocutors.
Agreed. And he's about to spring his trap... any... day... now.
Frankly, it's a piss-poor performance.
And look where it got old Socrates, anyway.

Bob Klase

7th June 2007, 11:18 AM

Hallucinations require thought. Rocks don't hallucinate. Therefore if one is hallucinating one must exist. "Nothing" can't hallucinate after all.

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

What I'm doing is what I do often and due to no evidence to the contrary I must assume it is real which would fall within Occam's razor.

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

Bob Klase

7th June 2007, 11:20 AM

No. I'm saying that in "Cogito, Ergo sum" there isn't necessarily an "I"

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

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

petra10

7th June 2007, 11:38 AM

basically the only way i'd believe is if he/she/it superior being,god or whatever you want to call it,makes a big show of coming to earth. It could stop the world (cos its all powerful) and tell us all.It could explain what we want to know and show us a glimpse of heaven.Imagine how many new members it would get....this would have to be a gobal show with the whole world watching at the same time

PrincessIneffabelle

7th June 2007, 12:14 PM

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

"Oh," said God, "I hadn’t thought of that," and promptly disappeared in a puff of logic.*

*The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

Arkan_Wolfshade

7th June 2007, 12:59 PM

If we discover the most elementary particle possible, the particle that makes up everything, and every one of them that we example is signed, "Made by God".

Crossbow

7th June 2007, 01:21 PM

I asked this question in another thread and didn't get any real answers. Here's the question: What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

What would you accept as absolute proof of a God? Proof that can not be explained in any other way but through "God" as I defined him. Miracles, Magic, Prophecies, Visions can all be explained through other means which exclude a "God". So I'm curious what proof any of you who do not believe in a God would accept as proof of a God.

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

Wow!

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

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

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

Lonewulf

7th June 2007, 02:59 PM

If we discover the most elementary particle possible, the particle that makes up everything, and every one of them that we example is signed, "Made by God".

...

In what language?

Michael C

7th June 2007, 04:04 PM

To have something I could call "proof", or even "near proof", I'd need evidence from repeatable experiences, repeated many, many times.

If all people who prayed to Jesus at least once a day never got ill, and all people who openly denied the Holy Spirit were stricken with unpleasant and embarrassing diseases, it would make a pretty strong case for the vengeful Christian god. It would be even more impressive if, each time someone said "I deny the Holy Spirit", a huge finger appeared in the sky sending a lightning bolt that hit only the person who had blasphemed. But of course this would have to happen every time, not just once.

c4ts

7th June 2007, 05:02 PM

If the world really turned out the way Kent Hovind said it did, with uniform brackish water being the only naturally occurring water worldwide, fossilized animal tracks leading away from the ark, magnets attracting ice and such, that might prove it to me. Other things would include talking animals, minor supernatural phenomena, a giant flaming sword turning every which way to keep me from setting foot on the banks of the Euphrates, those kind of things.

Hokulele

7th June 2007, 05:29 PM

I'll take a free energy device. Just a small one would be fine. As long as it can power my car indefinitely, for free, no maintenance. And if he could make my car an Aston Martin while he's at it . . .

* Goes out to check the driveway. *

Tanstaafl

7th June 2007, 05:36 PM

Well, god knows you don't need that, since you have your bicycle. :)

Hokulele

7th June 2007, 05:50 PM

Well, god knows you don't need that, since you have your bicycle. :)

My goodness, you are right.

Make that an Aston Martin with a bike rack.

jsfisher

7th June 2007, 05:58 PM

There's no "I" there. "Cogito" simply means "Thought" not "I think" as commonly translated in English."

Holy mis-translation, Batman!!!

May I use this as proof my Latin teacher did not exist?

Taffer

7th June 2007, 07:11 PM

Oh look, another Dustinism.

Dustin, you cannot prove anything a posteriori.

ksbluesfan

7th June 2007, 07:30 PM

God could provide enough evidence for me to believe. That's not necessarily proof, but it would be good enough for me. For example, if God granted me the ability to give the correct answer to any question and understand both the question and answer, that might convince me.

maatorc

7th June 2007, 07:31 PM

...In what language?

Energy.

stamenflicker

7th June 2007, 07:46 PM

Well, I'm a Christian and the only proof I'll accept isn't available in the flesh. As soon as someone does prove it, count on me to reject it.

Arkan_Wolfshade

7th June 2007, 08:40 PM

...

In what language?
A language no one has ever seen, spoken, or thought of; but everyone can read.

Darth Rotor

7th June 2007, 08:53 PM

Yes. That I am. Cogito, Ergo Sum.
Cogito ergo bibum.

I think, therefore, I drink.

(If I don't, the head keeps hurting.)

DR

Darth Rotor

7th June 2007, 08:56 PM

Oh look, another Dustinism.

Dustin, you cannot prove anything a posteriori.
So, that means he can't prove stuff he has pulled out of his arse? :eek:

DR

strathmeyer

7th June 2007, 09:13 PM

A lot more specific. What would you consider evidence? Give me an example.

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

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

Is that enough examples? Do you still have questions?

Complexity

7th June 2007, 09:15 PM

A very pleasant silence from one quarter...

Darth Rotor

7th June 2007, 09:16 PM

Do you still have questions?
I think he wants to know where the Men's room is, due to his twitching, nervous looking about, and his knees banging together.

DR

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 09:16 PM

It's not an operative definition, so it can't be related to empirical evidence.

"Operative definition"?

If you make a valid deduction based on premises that may be true, you have a conclusion that may be true. You don't know anything new; you've merely added another proposition to your collection.

A valid deduction based on premises observed to be true generates a new fact.

Simply observing it doesn't make it true.

They're not evidence at all, Dustin.

The conclusion may be evidence, if it is valid and sound. The argument is only ever an argument.

That's the point.

It is now.

Since when?

How can you tell? You've just posited that there is no difference between God and the unguided rules of physics. In what sense does God then exist, and how do you know?

Maybe we can't know (We can but for the sake of this discussion we don't need to). However the difference is there is a conscious creator controlling it when he chooses.

Statistically. So the evidence would be inductive, rather than deductive, but if you're dealing with the real world that will invariably be the case.

Give me an example of how for instance Quantum fluctuations can be determined not to be coming from a creator.

If Being A can arbitrarily manipulate QM events to its whim, and also claims to be the creator of the universe, what reason do you have for doubt?

Well the lack of proof he's presenting that he is indeed the creator of the universe. Simply having great powers doesn't mean you're automatically "God" as I defined in the OP. It doesn't mean you made the universe.

As I said, this doesn't constitute proof, merely that if we have something with the observable attributes assigned to God which also claims to be God, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is God.

All of the observable attributes except the main one: Creator of the universe. If I have all of the trappings of a policeman does that make me a policeman? I have the suit, the badge, the gun, I'm automatically a policeman? Of course not. This is why I am always cautious if I am pulled over and never put too much trust in the officer pulling me over. I would be dumb and gullible to do so.

Of course not. As I have explained, it is impossible to do so. Our knowledge is bounded by space-time, and the creation of space-time is obviously outside of space-time itself, so we can never prove or even show inductively that something existing inside of space-time (even partly) was the Creator.

That's why your initial definition is useless.

You've failed to give an example of what would prove a God so you conclude proof is impossible?

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 09:17 PM

:jaw-dropp What? Are you saying that god cannot be transcendant to us???

No. I'm saying he doesn't have to be.

What if he doesn't want to?

Then he doesn't want to.

Gertrude

7th June 2007, 09:25 PM

No. I'm saying he doesn't have to be.
If so, you must admit the possibility that god is unprovable.

Then he doesn't want to.
And we won't be "able to understand or comprehend his proof".

Q.E.D.

Complexity

7th June 2007, 09:29 PM

Dustin - What are you trying to achieve?

You've started several silly threads and have conducted yourself like an immature junior high kid in each.

If you want to say, "I believe in God", then do so. That is what I'd expect you to say. Instead, you pussyfoot around, use language thoughtlessly, and seem to think you're making a positive impression on... someone.

Complexity

7th June 2007, 09:32 PM

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

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 09:37 PM

Quit relying on inadequate dictionaries for technical terminology.

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

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

No. Do your own work.

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

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

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

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

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

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

No. Use a dictionary and give it some thought.

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

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

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

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

No, strong and persuasive evidence is not proof.

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

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

That you know of at least...

To me, of course.

But hypothetically, What could persuade you?

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

Example?

Nah - there's no point.

That's the point of this thread.

What sort of mental illness do you have?

None that I know of.

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

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

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

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

Darth Rotor

7th June 2007, 09:40 PM

It all depends on the context of the usage. "Proof" isn't always used in the context of pure logic. I never used in the context of pure logic.
Is pure logic as intoxicating as pure grain alcohol? I bet you can't start fires with it, unless it is written down.

Does it come with a complimentary kilt?

DR

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 09:40 PM

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

So how isn't this an argument from incredulity?

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 09:44 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 09:56 PM

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

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

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

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

Look: 1.6180339887!

Am I God now?

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

Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

cogito : to think, ruminate, ponder, consider, plan.
http://sunsite.ubc.ca/LatinDictionary/HyperText/latin-dict-full.html#C

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

The Great Hairy One

7th June 2007, 09:56 PM

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

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

1) Dustin's definition of a "god" is very nebulous. It allows for such beings as Ptah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah), Raven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_%28mythology%29) or any number of other deities and creationistic myths. For us to fully discuss the pathology of this particular deity, we need a much tighter definition.

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

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

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

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

Please.

Cheers,
TGHO

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:04 PM

Darn right they're not.

Depends on context.

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

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

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

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

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

How is that 'evidence'?

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

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

jsfisher

7th June 2007, 10:07 PM

Given a specific set of axioms about our basic existence we can 'prove' given a set of factual premises that something is true. Let's try it here:

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

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:07 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who says there isn't? :confused:

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:09 PM

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

Rocks exist. Rocks don't hallucinate.

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

What was the question exactly?

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:11 PM

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

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

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

bignickel

7th June 2007, 10:13 PM

So how isn't this an argument from incredulity?
It's not an argument at all; it's merely a setup to my second point. Which is the second time I've said that.
Don't creationists frequently say they are unable to see how what is being presented is evidence for Evolution? It's an argument from incredibility either way you cut it.
You asked me how my position was different from a creationist. I explained how it was different. You then asked me if creationists say a particular thing. I have no idea; I suggest you go ask them. I suspect that Creationists say 'evolution didn't happen because it's impossible to go from A to B.' While you or I might see this as an inability, they do not.

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

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:14 PM

Wow!

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

How could it prove such a thing?

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

Impossible?

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

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

jsfisher

7th June 2007, 10:15 PM

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:17 PM

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

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

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

Except I made no such claims.

Is that enough examples? Do you still have questions?

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

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:20 PM

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

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

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

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

jsfisher

7th June 2007, 10:22 PM

I am struck by two thoughts:

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

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:26 PM

1) Dustin's definition of a "god" is very nebulous. It allows for such beings as Ptah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah%29), Raven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_%28mythology%29) or any number of other deities and creationistic myths. For us to fully discuss the pathology of this particular deity, we need a much tighter definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:27 PM

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

Be a doll and point it out for me.

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

This doesn't mean it's all wrong or false. It just means that somewhere there will be incomplete or contradictory aspects of it. This definitely doesn't mean that 1+1 doesn't =2.

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:32 PM

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

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

You stated your differences however let's make up a hypothetical creationist named Stan.

Stan:I don't believe in Evolution.

Person A: Why?

Stan:I can't comprehend how any of the evidence presented in support of Evolution can possibly be correct and no amount of evidence that I can conceive can possibly convince me of Evolution.

How are you different from Stan?

JoeTheJuggler

7th June 2007, 10:35 PM

It's not really relevant and simply means Descartes should have phrased it better. However the phrase "Thought, Therefore existence." is what we'll use.
Why use that? It's not what Descartes said, and it's not what Descartes meant. So why quote him?

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

So God is a part of the universe? Then God as originator of the universe also originated himself. So how is saying God originated the universe different than saying that the universe originated itself?

Also, "universe" means everything. Saying what we "consider to be the universe" or "the observable universe" changes the meaning of "universe" to some subset of everything.

For instance, if the need for an originator of the universe is imperative, why isn't there a need for an originator of God?

Who says there isn't? :confused:
Again, if God is the originator of everything, then there can't be something (God) that was originated by something else.

[By the way, can we say "create" instead of the very awkward "originate", or do you intend a difference in meaning that is lost on me?]

Now, back to the beginning: what is your definition of God? It sounds like you are now saying that God is some entity that is a subset of the universe (a member of the universe), but that God is also the originator of the universe (but not necessarily of himself?) You don't see any logical problem?

You have not operationally defined God. Please review the meaning of the term "operational definition".

Again, I agree with your overall point: there is nothing that could possibly prove God's existence to me. Growing an amputed leg back, etc. could be the work of benign aliens whose technology is way beyond ours. Something like that might make a strong case for God's existence, but it certainly wouldn't be proof.

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:37 PM

I am struck by two thoughts:Dustin Kesselberg is merely waiting for someone to say, "There is nothing I'd accept as proof of god." Then, he'll bounce.

That's already been said numerous times in this thread.

bignickel

7th June 2007, 10:54 PM

You stated your differences however let's make up a hypothetical creationist named Stan.

Stan:I don't believe in Evolution.
Person A: Why?

Stan:I can't comprehend how any of the evidence presented in support of Evolution can possibly be correct and no amount of evidence that I can conceive can possibly convince me of Evolution.

How are you different from Stan?
Wow. The first part of Stan's explanation makes no sense, and the second part is very honest. I suspect that the explanation for the second part is "the bible says how things were created, so that's what I believe."

My original answer stands: the evidence in front of me may be evidence that shows that there is god/s. But I can not tell the difference between it and evidence showing that an alien is posing as god/s. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I can not tell the difference between an omnipotent immortal god and an half-omnipotent half-immortal god because I am a finite being within the universe: I can only have a chance of properly recognizing things within this universe.

The creationist is facing things not only within this universe, but on this planet. If he can't recognize what he's dealing with, it isn't because he's a finite being in the universe solving the existence of something outside of it. It's not a question of recognition, it's a question of intelligence (if he is using the argument that I think you're trying to make, that is; other creationist might have completely different reasons). I myself don't understand quantum physics, as I mentioned before. But I won't go around denying it's existence just because I don't understand it.

I have answered this question twice. If you have a different question, you may pose it. I'm probably not going to answer the same question a third time.

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 10:55 PM

Why use that? It's not what Descartes said, and it's not what Descartes meant. So why quote him?

I thought he wrote it. Though he was using it as an argument proving his own existence. He said that if a contention is made (or perceived to be made) that one exists then one necessarily exist otherwise it wouldn't be possible to contend or perceive to contend such a phrase. Though for our use Let's stick with "Thought, Therefore existence." Though it really doesn't make a difference what phrase we use.

So God is a part of the universe? Then God as originator of the universe also originated himself. So how is saying God originated the universe different than saying that the universe originated itself?

Maybe it isn't in that circumstance. Though in the former there's that elephant in the room called "God" who consciously put it all into action.

Though your initial assertion...

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

Isn't true. Simply originating something doesn't exclude one being part of that something. I can originate a prosthetic limb and make the limb part of myself and I part of the limb.

Also, "universe" means everything. Saying what we "consider to be the universe" or "the observable universe" changes the meaning of "universe" to some subset of everything.

Semantics. The word 'universe' was coined before we had an adequate understanding of cosmology or big-bang physics.

Again, if God is the originator of everything, then there can't be something (God) that was originated by something else.

This is semantics again. If we define "Universe" as "everything in all reality" then obviously God couldn't have a predecessor however if we limit his creation to for instance setting about the big bang then we don't fall into the same problems.

[By the way, can we say "create" instead of the very awkward "originate", or do you intend a difference in meaning that is lost on me?]

Either works fine.

Now, back to the beginning: what is your definition of God? It sounds like you are now saying that God is some entity that is a subset of the universe (a member of the universe), but that God is also the originator of the universe (but not necessarily of himself?) You don't see any logical problem?

If God is a subset of the universe and an intrinsic part of the universe then that doesn't necessarily mean that he can't apart from it, I.E. apart from our perspective existence. An example being if I create something that will become part of me or me become part of it, that doesn't mean that I created myself necessarily. If I make an airplane for instance and I become the pilot, I could said to be part of the airplane. This doesn't mean I don't need parents to create me.

You have not operationally defined God. Please review the meaning of the term "operational definition".

Define it.

Again, I agree with your overall point: there is nothing that could possibly prove God's existence to me. Growing an amputed leg back, etc. could be the work of benign aliens whose technology is way beyond ours. Something like that might make a strong case for God's existence, but it certainly wouldn't be proof.

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

bignickel

7th June 2007, 11:03 PM

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!").

The Great Hairy One

7th June 2007, 11:06 PM

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

Nope. It's a far too nebulous definition.

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

Not when discussing science, Dustin. Look in a scientific dictionary, not a plain old English one.

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

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

:rolleyes:

That's evidence, Dustin. Not proof.

Two. Different. Things.

Cheers,
TGHO

strathmeyer

7th June 2007, 11:17 PM

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

Except I made no such claims.

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

God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

How can I explain to you how you would prove to me something that you made up? Doesn't it work the other way around?

I believe in invisible people. Tell me how to prove to you that they're real. "Get them to speak," you say? Well, they can't speak! But they're still real. "Get them to move something", you say? Well, they can't move things! But they're still real.

What would I accept as proof of a god? I, personally, would accept any proof at all.

Apathia

7th June 2007, 11:24 PM

Are we there yet?
(The part where it's said "no knowledge on this subject is possible without the authority of a divine revelation.")
In a space of one month, I had both a Baptist and a Bahai hand me that. Unfortunately it was just as impossible to tell whose revelation held the authority.

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 11:27 PM

Wow. The first part of Stan's explanation makes no sense, and the second part is very honest. I suspect that the explanation for the second part is "the bible says how things were created, so that's what I believe."

The first part is "I don't believe in Evolution". What doesn't make sense about that exactly? The statement itself. Not the denial of evolution.

My original answer stands: the evidence in front of me may be evidence that shows that there is god/s. But I can not tell the difference between it and evidence showing that an alien is posing as god/s. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I can not tell the difference between an omnipotent immortal god and an half-omnipotent half-immortal god because I am a finite being within the universe: I can only have a chance of properly recognizing things within this universe.

Within the universe. Let's image that God has moved himself into the universe. What evidence then would you accept? We're talking about a thing within the universe now who is no longer transcendent or outside of it.

The creationist is facing things not only within this universe, but on this planet. If he can't recognize what he's dealing with, it isn't because he's a finite being in the universe solving the existence of something outside of it. It's not a question of recognition, it's a question of intelligence (if he is using the argument that I think you're trying to make, that is; other creationist might have completely different reasons). I myself don't understand quantum physics, as I mentioned before. But I won't go around denying it's existence just because I don't understand it.

But you go around denying the validity of the evidence commonly presented for God when you clearly admit no evidence no matter what will suffice? Stan the creationist denies evolution because he can't comprehend it. You claim you can't think of any acceptable hypothetical evidence of a God because you can't comprehend it.

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 11:29 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 11:34 PM

Nope. It's a far too nebulous definition.

So how isn't this a copout? Why is it too "nebulous"? Why can't you discuss it as it stands? It defines "God" and explains his abilities.

Not when discussing science, Dustin. Look in a scientific dictionary, not a plain old English one.

How's this?

1.Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a trial.

2.That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Proof

:rolleyes:

That's evidence, Dustin. Not proof.

Two. Different. Things.

Cheers,
TGHO

Explain the difference. How isn't it proof?

Dustin Kesselberg

7th June 2007, 11:37 PM

God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

Yes. That's it.

How can I explain to you how you would prove to me something that you made up? Doesn't it work the other way around?

I didn't make it up.

I believe in invisible people. Tell me how to prove to you that they're real. "Get them to speak," you say? Well, they can't speak! But they're still real. "Get them to move something", you say? Well, they can't move things! But they're still real.

I never said I believed in God. Since you say you believe in them I would ask what convinced you of their existence. What would you say?

What would I accept as proof of a god? I, personally, would accept any proof at all.

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

Complexity

7th June 2007, 11:41 PM

Taffer

7th June 2007, 11:42 PM

So, that means he can't prove stuff he has pulled out of his arse? :eek:

DR

No, I can do that a priori though. :D

Taffer

7th June 2007, 11:45 PM

Did you miss my post, Dustin?

The Great Hairy One

7th June 2007, 11:53 PM

So how isn't this a copout? Why is it too "nebulous"? Why can't you discuss it as it stands? It defines "God" and explains his abilities.

It defines dozens of deities. Which one do you want to talk about, or are you happy to include all of them?

How's this?

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Proof

That's pretty good. Do you understand it?

Explain the difference. How isn't it proof?

Uh, I think you need to read your link from www.biology-online.org above and have a bit of a think.

Cheers,
TGHO

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 12:03 AM

Dustin - End of my participation in this thread. We have different goals and there has been no meeting of the minds.

I hope you enjoy reading and thinking for the next several years and begin to mellow with age.

I'm sorry you would prefer to use only one definition of a word when I used it totally differently and my definition (as I have proven) is no less valid in such a context.

Did you miss my post, Dustin?

Must have. Link it.

It defines dozens of deities. Which one do you want to talk about, or are you happy to include all of them?

Yes.

That's pretty good. Do you understand it?

Yes. I quoted it.

1.Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a trial.

2.That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration.

It seems to disagree with you that "Proof" and "Evidence" aren't synonymous in science.

Uh, I think you need to read your link from www.biology-online.org (http://www.biology-online.org/) above and have a bit of a think.

I have. See above.

Taffer

8th June 2007, 12:12 AM

I just asked "you do know that you cannot prove anything a posteriori, right?".

The Great Hairy One

8th June 2007, 12:14 AM

Yes.

Hmmm, interesting.

Yes. I quoted it.

Which does not mean you understood it...

It seems to disagree with you that "Proof" and "Evidence" aren't synonymous in science.

...as we can see here.

I have. See above.

Unfortunately not.

Cheers,
TGHO

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 12:21 AM

I just asked "you do know that you cannot prove anything a posteriori, right?".

Tell me what you mean by that.

Hmmm, interesting.

So please continue. I'll narrow them down later. In another thread.

...as we can see here.

You're wrong.

1.Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a trial.

2.That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration.

Unfortunately not.

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

Taffer

8th June 2007, 12:29 AM

I mean, Dustin, that you cannot prove any a posteriori knowledge.

The Great Hairy One

8th June 2007, 12:44 AM

You're wrong.

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

*Sigh*

Never studied science, did you Dustin?

Read:
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf

This should help you understand.

Cheers,
TGHO

PixyMisa

8th June 2007, 12:52 AM

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

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

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.
Game over. Your score is: Zero.

bignickel

8th June 2007, 12:53 AM

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".
Oh, good. What did I win? A cash prize would be nice, although I can always sell it on ebay.

Lonewulf

8th June 2007, 01:36 AM

Tell me what you mean by that.

Seems pretty clear to me.

So please continue.

Thank you for your request. Narration continues...

You're wrong.

No, he is right.

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

That seems a bit negative.

catbasket

8th June 2007, 04:49 AM

If, when I was 19yo and drunkenly shouting at the sky "God you bastage, I don't believe in you, so zap me to hell", and I had been zapped to hell - that might have convinced me.

D'rok

8th June 2007, 06:06 AM

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

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

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

Someone may have already pointed this out to you, but I'm too lazy to plow through the rest of this thread to find out. So...

Tell me how sciences use of logic "suggestively" rather than conclusively. What isn't conclusive about my previous logical proof?Because it is deductively invalid. This is not a valid argument. You have committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent, therefore your conclusion is at best suggestive. This argument does not rule out any other causes of what we see in the fossil record. Science encounters this problem all of the time, which is why multiple confirmations of a hypothesis and multiple disconfirmations of competing hypothesis by way of empirical experimentation are necessary before any confidence (not proof) in a conclusion can be achieved.

And this is yet another illustration of the difference between proof and evidence. I hope you are not planning on offering a similar "proof" for god. Glaucon would be very disappointed.

Crossbow

8th June 2007, 06:54 AM

How could it prove such a thing?

I do not know how it prove such a thing. Which is why I asked such a thing.

Besides, it would be the responsiblity of the being who is claiming to be the ruler and creator of the universe to provide proof of that it is actually the ruler and creator of the universe.

Impossible?

Yes, impossible. I expect that it would be impossible to prove what happened before the universe came into existence, how things can live for 13.7 billion years, how it could create an entire universe, and so on because such things are so far removed from all human experience and knowledge.

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

Umm, your original question did not have any stipulations on the what people believe prior to the proof being offered so I did not include anything about these stipulations in my response.

If you now wish to change your question now, then that is fine by me, but I think that it would be better to start a new thread as opposed to changing your OP in the middle of the thread you started.

Loss Leader

8th June 2007, 07:53 AM

I have however been pointing out that the evidence they presented wouldn't meet the criteria for actual evidence.

This sentence makes no sense. Evidence is not actual evidence? You appear to not understand the definition or function of evidence.

The O.P. question was leading to the point about what would suffice for evidence that would convince you and I haven't changed that question despite the fact I attack them for their credulity.

Oh, but you have. You have set out a standard of proof: evidence "that would convince you." Any honest answer, therefore, is correct. If I said that I would be convinced of the existence of God by finding a restaurant under the Restaurants listing in the yellow pages, that's all the evidence it would take. It is irrelevant that you disagree with the standard of evidence that I have adopted.

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

That is utterly and completely incorrect in each and every respect. You have demonstrated an absolute lack of comprehension of the concepts of evidence, proof, sufficiency, logic, science, philosophy and law.

How is that 'evidence'?

You're a moron.

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

You are wrong. The very dictionary definitions you quote demonstrate that you are wrong. They do not say that proof and evidence are synonymous. The definition you quoted is: "That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment."

If proof is synonymous with evidence, the definition would just say "evidence." It does not. It says that proof is whatever degree of evidence that, for whatever reason, one decides is convincing.

Let's take a look at two actual synonyms to see the difference: automobile and car. Would one say that automobile is a degree of car? No, one would not. They are the same thing.

How about happiness and ecstasy? Is ecstasy a degree of happiness? Yes, it is. It is a tremendous amount of happiness.

By conflating "evidence" and "proof," you have colapsed the entire system of logical thought. It's a common mistake among children like yourself. They are constantly arguing that a bloody knife doesn't "prove" someone is a murderer. Of course it does not. It's just a piece of evidence that tends to make it more true that the defendant is the murderer.

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

No, it is not. You do not understand the concept of proof.

Can you design an experiment that demonstrates that an object is pulled to earth at 32 feet per second squared? Of course, you can. But can you design an experiment that demonstrates that this will be true tomorrow? Can you show today that gravity will operate as expected next week? You cannot.

In science, the best we can say is: "This is how a thing has operated in the past. This is why it has done so. Every time we test it, it operates the same way. We have no idea if it will continue tomorrow."

That is not 100%.

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

Nope. No one can. No one can show the chance is zero, no one can show the chance is 100%. That's why nothing in science is ever "proven" to a logical certainty.

I'm sorry you would prefer to use only one definition of a word when I used it totally differently and my definition (as I have proven) is no less valid in such a context.

Oh, but it is. Your definition is wrong. The dictionary says so.

It seems to disagree with you that "Proof" and "Evidence" aren't synonymous in science.

It seems that way to you because you don't understand the differences between synonyms and degree. If you were smarter, this seeming disagreement would disappear.

Morrigan

8th June 2007, 08:18 AM

D'rok

8th June 2007, 08:40 AM

From what I gathered, his point seems to be, that since creationists don't find the evidence for evolution to be compelling, no matter how much of it is produced, then atheists who can't find any evidence for god, now matter which gets produced, are no better.

Except that several of us have given honest answers about what we would consider to be compelling evidence. Dustin then responds by calling us credulous and gullible and dismisses us on the grounds that our evidence does not constitute proof. He seems to think that this is meaningful because he appears to be under the impression that formal deductive logic proves things about the universe. He does not understand that all of our knowledge - even the things that we are most sure about - is conditional. Collection of evidence results in confidence approaching, but never reaching, 100%. Proof is not possible outside of formalized systems of logic.

Of course, it's bollocks. The theory of evolution is what best describes the biological and paleontological data we have. It's possible to make predictions based on this theory. The data is there, and if we want to explain how it got there, we need a theory - in this case, evolution.
The "theory" of God, on the other hand, explains nothing. There is nothing around that requires a divine creator to explain its presence. So the presence of a divine creator is just a gratuitous assumption based on nothing at all (well, they call it "faith").Yup.

Dustin's premise really makes no sense. But I doubt that surprises anyone.Indeed.

JoeTheJuggler

8th June 2007, 08:40 AM

Maybe it isn't in that circumstance. Though in the former there's that elephant in the room called "God" who consciously put it all into action.
That's just begging the question.

Isn't true. Simply originating something doesn't exclude one being part of that something. I can originate a prosthetic limb and make the limb part of myself and I part of the limb.
But you're postulating God as the creator of everything--the entire universe. That's where you run into the problem of set membership.
By the way, now you are using "originate" in an entirely different way--originating a prosthetic limb means moving and altering bits of stuff that already exist. You cannot "originate" one from nothing, which is the way you are using that word with God.

This is semantics again. If we define "Universe" as "everything in all reality" then obviously God couldn't have a predecessor however if we limit his creation to for instance setting about the big bang then we don't fall into the same problems.
Yes, I am arguing an issue that has to do with semantics--the meaning of the words. Just saying it is "semantics" in no way dismisses the issue.

In fact, I prefer using "universe" in its ordinary meaning of everything, and not the special one used by physicists or cosmologists. They actually can speak of more than one universe. Their definition is more like "everything in this contiguous chunk of spacetime" or some such. Some even use the term "multiverse" when talking about everything. Or Douglas Adams' term, "the whole general sort of mish-mash."

If universe does not mean everything, then how are you using it? In other words, if you're talking about more than one universe, are you saying that God created them all, or just this one?

There's a pretty good explanation on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition).
Here's a shorter definition:
"An exact description of how to derive a value for a characteristic you are measuring. It includes a precise definition of the characteristic and how, specifically, data collectors are to measure the characteristic.

Used to remove ambiguity and ensure all data collectors have the same understanding. Reduces chances of disparate results between collectors after Measurement System Analysis." From this source (http://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/Operational_Definition-621.htm).

One example: years ago, I did some observational studies with some White-faced Sakis. In order to count occurrences of behaviors, those behaviors had to be operationally defined, such that ANY observer could determine when it occurs. For instance, I couldn't say that the female is pouting, unless "pouting" is operationally defined (maybe it means the arms have to be crossed in front of the chest, while sitting facing a wall and not vocalizing). (I did not use "pouting" in any of my studies!)

If you don't know what proof for a God would be how can you POSSIBLY deny the proof that is ever offered to you? Are you actually contending that you know what proof for God isn't but don't know what proof of God is?
For most people, belief in God is a matter of faith. Most atheists don't claim proof that God isn't, but find a lack of any reason to believe. Others on this thread have pointed out the difference between evidence and proof. For me, the reason not to believe in God is lack of evidence.

I also find problems with logical inconsistencies with most definitions of God. (Note: I am not saying these are things that you have claimed in your definition in this thread.) For example, if God is all-knowing, then the future (if that's part of the "all" that God knows, which is usually claimed), then the future must be determined, so there can't be free will. If there is no free will, then how can there be sin or judgment and reward or punishment (other common claims in descriptions of God)?

Bob Klase

8th June 2007, 09:12 AM

Rocks exist. Rocks don't hallucinate.

And what have you accepted as proof of that?

What was the question exactly?

It's your question. Look at the title you put on the thread- it's on every page.

toddjh

8th June 2007, 09:12 AM

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

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

I'm not talking about just transmitting a number from point A to point B by radio or something. I'm talking about fixed mathematical constants which are an inherent part of our reality. The example Sagan used was pi (ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter). Pi has endless, non-repeating decimal expansion, which you can compute to as many decimal places as you want to by a variety of formulae.

In Sagan's example, the digits in the decimal expansion of pi appeared to be more or less random for billions and billions of digits...and then they stop, and a long sequence of only 0's and 1's begins. A message in binary, written right into a fundamental mathematical constant. The only way such a message could exist is if it were actually encoded into the fabric of reality. It would be the same everywhere; mathematicians all over the universe could see it. Everybody would agree on what it said, and in fact anybody with a decently fast computer could see it for themselves. I would find that very convincing.

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

It couldn't be inside the universe. It would have to be something external to us, something which had some control over the shape our reality would take; specifically, our laws of mathematics.

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

*shrug* It's trivially easy to find alternative explanations for anything. As you yourself have sophomorically pointed out in this very thread, you can invoke hallucinations to explain away pretty much anything you want. But that doesn't mean it's the most reasonable explanation.

http://sunsite.ubc.ca/LatinDictionary/HyperText/latin-dict-full.html#C
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cogitare

Cogito = I think.
Cogitare = to think.
Full conjugation here (http://www.mentalcode.com/latin/verbs/conjugate.plx?file=1&pres=cogito&inf=cogitare&perf=cogitavi&part=cogitatum).

toddjh

8th June 2007, 09:24 AM

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!").

That's the beauty of it, though. A message encoded in a mathematical constant would be visible to everybody. There would be no need to convince anyone; all they'd have to do is compute it to the specified number of decimal places and see it for themselves -- and once the mainstream scientific community found out about it, you can bet that all accusations of insanity would be quickly dropped. No interpretation would be necessary, except of course about the content of the message, whatever that may be.

You could still invoke aliens as an alternative explanation, I suppose, although after a certain point highly advanced, universe-creating aliens start to look an awful lot like God. You could even call the message a coincidence if you wanted, although the odds of finding a long string of 0's and 1's within a few billion digits of the beginning of pi would be vanishingly small, and Occam's Razor might suggest we drop that explanation, especially if the message had something interesting to say.

Loss Leader

8th June 2007, 11:01 AM

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

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

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

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

How would you prove such an observation wasn't a hallucination?
If he can't prove to me that it wasn't an illusion or dream then how can he prove it to himself?

I'm just saying that if one can't prove (in general, not to me) that something isn't a dream or illusion then how can they prove it to themselves?

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

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

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

Beleth

8th June 2007, 02:07 PM

What I'm doing is what I do often and due to no evidence to the contrary I must assume it is real which would fall within Occam's razor.
How many lunchtimes watching God create a universe would it take before you would categorize it as something you do "often" and therefore would assume it was real?

andyandy

8th June 2007, 02:32 PM

Mashuna

8th June 2007, 02:58 PM

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

This was my view of the progression of the thread too. Dustin asks for proof of God, then claims it doesn't count as proof because of solipsism. I feel like I'm sixteen again, when one of my friends first read philosophy for dummies.

Next we'll be on to 'how do you know that my red is the same as your red', and I'll have to sneak off to the park to drink a 2 litre bottle of cider with my mates.

Darth Rotor

8th June 2007, 03:14 PM

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.
Well spank my bottom and call me Cheeky, you lead one to believe that God is the Last of the Xel Naga!

Never considered that. :confused:

DR

Darth Rotor

8th June 2007, 03:17 PM

Did you miss my post, Dustin?
I'd say me missed a bit more than that. ;)

DR

jsfisher

8th June 2007, 04:41 PM

If A then B

B is true

therefore A is true.

:D

Now look what you've done!!! You've distilled the discussion down to basic facts and logic. How is Dustin supposed to redefine things or move the goals if you render it so simply?

jsfisher

8th June 2007, 04:55 PM

Be a doll and point it out for me.

Sweety, with regard to your faulty logic from Premises 1 and 2 to Conclusion, it has already been explained by others.

This doesn't mean it's all wrong or false. It just means that somewhere there will be incomplete or contradictory aspects of it. This definitely doesn't mean that 1+1 doesn't =2.

I made no such statement regarding the sum of 1 and 1. Why are you responding thusly? I merely pointed out to you that you had falsely stated Gödel's famous theorem.

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

I think someone very self-important once said that.

By the way, in the purity of Mathematics, 1+1=2 is a provable consequence of the standard fundamental axioms of Arithmetic (a 121 page proof, if memory serves). That makes it a result of definition more than any sort of absolute fact. Under a different set of axioms, different results are possible -- perhaps with less association with the world we perceive -- hey, but that's how this wacky math thing works.

andyandy

8th June 2007, 05:12 PM

This definitely doesn't mean that 1+1 doesn't =2.
.

1+1=10 ;)

jsfisher

8th June 2007, 05:16 PM

That's already been said numerous times in this thread.

That just underscores how smart many of the folks here really are.

jsfisher

8th June 2007, 05:29 PM

1+1=10 ;)

Enough of this binary thinking!!!

andyandy

8th June 2007, 05:46 PM

Enough of this binary thinking!!!

There are only 10 types of people in the world - those that understand binary, and those that don't :D

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 08:50 PM

I mean, Dustin, that you cannot prove any a posteriori knowledge.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

*Sigh*

Never studied science, did you Dustin?

Sure I have.

Read:
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf

You never addressed the link I posted.

Those people are using it in different contexts. They're using "proof" in the purely logical context which isn't the same way I'm using it. I already explained this and showed that "Proof" can mean the same thing as evidence both from a scientific lexicon site and the dictionary and you post links from a Canadian High school and a roman catholic college?

This should help you understand.

I already understand quite clearly. You're grasping at straws.

Game over. Your score is: Zero.

Elaborate.

Seems pretty clear to me.

So explain it to me.

No, he is right.

How? The sources disagree.

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 08:54 PM

Because it is deductively invalid. This is not a valid argument. You have committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent, therefore your conclusion is at best suggestive.

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

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The conclusion doesn't connect the two premises. Bill Gates simply being rich doesn't mean he owns fort Knox even if owning fort Knox means he's rich. My argument:

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

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This doesn't make the same mistake.

This argument does not rule out any other causes of what we see in the fossil record. Science encounters this problem all of the time, which is why multiple confirmations of a hypothesis and multiple disconfirmations of competing hypothesis by way of empirical experimentation are necessary before any confidence (not proof) in a conclusion can be achieved.

Science rules them out making the premise 1 true.

And this is yet another illustration of the difference between proof and evidence. I hope you are not planning on offering a similar "proof" for god. Glaucon would be very disappointed.

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

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 08:57 PM

I do not know how it prove such a thing. Which is why I asked such a thing.

Neither do I.

Besides, it would be the responsibility of the being who is claiming to be the ruler and creator of the universe to provide proof of that it is actually the ruler and creator of the universe.

What would you accept as proof from him though?

Yes, impossible. I expect that it would be impossible to prove what happened before the universe came into existence, how things can live for 13.7 billion years, how it could create an entire universe, and so on because such things are so far removed from all human experience and knowledge.

You simply 'expect' it would be impossible? An argument from incredulity?

Umm, your original question did not have any stipulations on the what people believe prior to the proof being offered so I did not include anything about these stipulations in my response.

If you now wish to change your question now, then that is fine by me, but I think that it would be better to start a new thread as opposed to changing your OP in the middle of the thread you started.

I'm just furthering the discussion from that original question.

D'rok

8th June 2007, 09:04 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 09:08 PM

This sentence makes no sense. Evidence is not actual evidence? You appear to not understand the definition or function of evidence.

Let me rephrase to make it clear.

I have however been pointing out that the purported evidence they presented wouldn't meet the criteria for actual evidence.

Oh, but you have. You have set out a standard of proof: evidence "that would convince you." Any honest answer, therefore, is correct. If I said that I would be convinced of the existence of God by finding a restaurant under the Restaurants listing in the yellow pages, that's all the evidence it would take. It is irrelevant that you disagree with the standard of evidence that I have adopted.

Just because they answer the question correctly doesn't mean I can't criticize their answers.

That is utterly and completely incorrect in each and every respect. You have demonstrated an absolute lack of comprehension of the concepts of evidence, proof, sufficiency, logic, science, philosophy and law.

Well stop telling me I demonstrate "an absolute lack of comprehension" and tell me how I'm wrong!

You're a moron.

Ouch!

You are wrong. The very dictionary definitions you quote demonstrate that you are wrong. They do not say that proof and evidence are synonymous. The definition you quoted is: "That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment."

If proof is synonymous with evidence, the definition would just say "evidence." It does not. It says that proof is whatever degree of evidence that, for whatever reason, one decides is convincing.

This is basically the same thing. "Proof" in this context is the amount of EVIDENCE needed to convince someone.

Let's take a look at two actual synonyms to see the difference: automobile and car. Would one say that automobile is a degree of car? No, one would not. They are the same thing.

How about happiness and ecstasy? Is ecstasy a degree of happiness? Yes, it is. It is a tremendous amount of happiness.

By conflating "evidence" and "proof," you have colapsed the entire system of logical thought. It's a common mistake among children like yourself. They are constantly arguing that a bloody knife doesn't "prove" someone is a murderer. Of course it does not. It's just a piece of evidence that tends to make it more true that the defendant is the murderer.

:rolleyes:

Main Entry: proof Part of Speech: noun 1 Definition: evidence

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

Main Entry: evidence Part of Speech: noun Definition: proof

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

No, it is not. You do not understand the concept of proof.

Sure I do. I posted the definition.

Can you design an experiment that demonstrates that an object is pulled to earth at 32 feet per second squared? Of course, you can. But can you design an experiment that demonstrates that this will be true tomorrow? Can you show today that gravity will operate as expected next week? You cannot.

Our being unable to predict it in the future isn't relevant. Answer the initial question. How isn't gravity as experienced by humans on earth 100% true for humans as experienced on earth?

In science, the best we can say is: "This is how a thing has operated in the past. This is why it has done so. Every time we test it, it operates the same way. We have no idea if it will continue tomorrow."

Except we base all of our technology on it continuing tomorrow. All of our lives.

That is not 100%.

What is it? 98%? 95%? If we do 100 tests where we drop a bowling ball from a roof of a building how many times will it go down opposed to straight up? 1? 5? The answer is 100 times. It will drop 100 times out of 100 times and that makes 100%.

Nope. No one can. No one can show the chance is zero, no one can show the chance is 100%. That's why nothing in science is ever "proven" to a logical certainty.

Statistically if we do a test we can show that there is a 100% statistical agreement that whenever an object is dropped, if nothing is in the way, it falls.

Oh, but it is. Your definition is wrong. The dictionary says so.

Oh, The dictionary and thesaurus agrees. See above.

Loss Leader

8th June 2007, 09:14 PM

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

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The conclusion doesn't connect the two premises. Bill Gates simply being rich doesn't mean he owns fort Knox even if owning fort Knox means he's rich. My argument:

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

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This doesn't make the same mistake.

But it is the say mistake. I'll show you step by step.

If Gates own Fort Knox then he is rich.
If X then Y.
He is rich.
Y.
Thus, he owns Fort Knox.
Thus, X

Your example is the same thing:

If evolution were true
If X
we would see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.
Then Y
Premise 2- We see this inthe fossil record very clearly.
Y
Thus evolution is true.
Thus X

The mistake you're making is one of equivocation again. "We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly" really only means that we see transitional fossils very clearly. You, however, have phrased it in such a way that you've affirmed X without any logical reason. "We see Premise 1 as being true" is a lie. You are lying when you write that. All that you SEE is transitional fossils in the fossil record. You then conflate that with the fact that evolution is true.

You're not allowed. The fact that Y (there are transitional fossils) is true does NOT mean that X (evolution) is true.

Once again, the very example you give demonstrates how very wrong you are. You really need to stop and get some therapy.

Undesired Walrus

8th June 2007, 09:21 PM

Proof?

A 9" penis

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 09:21 PM

That's just begging the question.

What question am I begging?

But you're postulating God as the creator of everything--the entire universe. That's where you run into the problem of set membership.
By the way, now you are using "originate" in an entirely different way--originating a prosthetic limb means moving and altering bits of stuff that already exist. You cannot "originate" one from nothing, which is the way you are using that word with God.

Not necessarily. Maybe put the universe together from raw material that already existed previously.

Yes, I am arguing an issue that has to do with semantics--the meaning of the words. Just saying it is "semantics" in no way dismisses the issue.

I pointed out it was semantics and then explained the confusion and clarified what I was asserting.

In fact, I prefer using "universe" in its ordinary meaning of everything, and not the special one used by physicists or cosmologists. They actually can speak of more than one universe. Their definition is more like "everything in this contiguous chunk of spacetime" or some such. Some even use the term "multiverse" when talking about everything. Or Douglas Adams' term, "the whole general sort of mish-mash."

If universe does not mean everything, then how are you using it? In other words, if you're talking about more than one universe, are you saying that God created them all, or just this one?

Maybe he made them all, maybe he made just this one. Let's for arguments sake say he made them all.

There's a pretty good explanation on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition).
Here's a shorter definition:
"An exact description of how to derive a value for a characteristic you are measuring. It includes a precise definition of the characteristic and how, specifically, data collectors are to measure the characteristic.

Used to remove ambiguity and ensure all data collectors have the same understanding. Reduces chances of disparate results between collectors after Measurement System Analysis." From this source (http://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/Operational_Definition-621.htm).

I'm not clear on how such a term relates to my definition of "God" or even needs to.

One example: years ago, I did some observational studies with some White-faced Sakis. In order to count occurrences of behaviors, those behaviors had to be operationally defined, such that ANY observer could determine when it occurs. For instance, I couldn't say that the female is pouting, unless "pouting" is operationally defined (maybe it means the arms have to be crossed in front of the chest, while sitting facing a wall and not vocalizing). (I did not use "pouting" in any of my studies!)

So you want me to define the words I used in my definition of "God"?

For most people, belief in God is a matter of faith. Most atheists don't claim proof that God isn't, but find a lack of any reason to believe. Others on this thread have pointed out the difference between evidence and proof. For me, the reason not to believe in God is lack of evidence.

Well that doesn't really answer my question.

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 09:22 PM

And what have you accepted as proof of that?

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

It's your question. Look at the title you put on the thread- it's on every page.

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.

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 09:28 PM

I'm not talking about just transmitting a number from point A to point B by radio or something. I'm talking about fixed mathematical constants which are an inherent part of our reality. The example Sagan used was pi (ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter). Pi has endless, non-repeating decimal expansion, which you can compute to as many decimal places as you want to by a variety of formulae.

In Sagan's example, the digits in the decimal expansion of pi appeared to be more or less random for billions and billions of digits...and then they stop, and a long sequence of only 0's and 1's begins. A message in binary, written right into a fundamental mathematical constant. The only way such a message could exist is if it were actually encoded into the fabric of reality. It would be the same everywhere; mathematicians all over the universe could see it. Everybody would agree on what it said, and in fact anybody with a decently fast computer could see it for themselves. I would find that very convincing.

So you're asking for such an entity to morph reality? This doesn't necessarily imply a "God" either. Or even someone who had a hand in making the universe.

It couldn't be inside the universe. It would have to be something external to us, something which had some control over the shape our reality would take; specifically, our laws of mathematics.

Why must something that can control reality exist outside of reality?

*shrug* It's trivially easy to find alternative explanations for anything. As you yourself have sophomorically pointed out in this very thread, you can invoke hallucinations to explain away pretty much anything you want. But that doesn't mean it's the most reasonable explanation.

Except using Occam's razor we rule them out.

Taffer

8th June 2007, 09:28 PM

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Do you know what a posteriori means, Dustin?

Loss Leader

8th June 2007, 09:29 PM

I'm just asking you what you would accept as proof then I'm attacking it as being insufficient.

... based on an utterly arbitrary standard that changes according to your needs at the moment.

Taffer

8th June 2007, 09:30 PM

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

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

An example:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The conclusion doesn't connect the two premises. Bill Gates simply being rich doesn't mean he owns fort Knox even if owning fort Knox means he's rich. My argument:

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

Premise 2- We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This doesn't make the same mistake.

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

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

I'm afraid science does not agree with you.

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 09:32 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 09:36 PM

I made no such statement regarding the sum of 1 and 1. Why are you responding thusly? I merely pointed out to you that you had falsely stated Gödel's famous theorem.

I didn't misstate it.

By the way, in the purity of Mathematics, 1+1=2 is a provable consequence of the standard fundamental axioms of Arithmetic (a 121 page proof, if memory serves).

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

That makes it a result of definition more than any sort of absolute fact. Under a different set of axioms, different results are possible -- perhaps with less association with the world we perceive -- hey, but that's how this wacky math thing works.

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

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 09:40 PM

I'm afraid it does.

P: Evolution is true
Q: The fossil record contains transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny from earlier species to later species.

If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

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

But it is the say mistake. I'll show you step by step.

If Gates own Fort Knox then he is rich.
If X then Y.
He is rich.
Y.
Thus, he owns Fort Knox.
Thus, X

Your example is the same thing:

If evolution were true
If X
we would see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.
Then Y
Premise 2- We see this inthe fossil record very clearly.
Y
Thus evolution is true.
Thus X

The mistake you're making is one of equivocation again. "We see Premise 1 as being true in the fossil record very clearly" really only means that we see transitional fossils very clearly. You, however, have phrased it in such a way that you've affirmed X without any logical reason. "We see Premise 1 as being true" is a lie. You are lying when you write that. All that you SEE is transitional fossils in the fossil record. You then conflate that with the fact that evolution is true.

You're not allowed. The fact that Y (there are transitional fossils) is true does NOT mean that X (evolution) is true.

Once again, the very example you give demonstrates how very wrong you are. You really need to stop and get some therapy.

Let me rephrase it...

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

Premise 2-We see Premise 1 as being true.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

Not in this context.

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

Do you know what a posteriori means, Dustin?

Yes

D'rok

8th June 2007, 09:57 PM

Let me rephrase it...

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

Premise 2-We see Premise 1 as being true.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

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

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

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

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

In addition, competing hypotheses must be disconfirmed like so:

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

8th June 2007, 11:17 PM

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, competing hypotheses must be disconfirmed like so:

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

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

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

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

Taffer

8th June 2007, 11:54 PM

Yes

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

Beleth

8th June 2007, 11:55 PM

Dustin -

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

Taffer

8th June 2007, 11:57 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

9th June 2007, 12:44 AM

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

Except I don't. Explain.

Dustin -

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

I don't know.

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

This is logically valid.

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

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

Taffer

9th June 2007, 02:34 AM

Except I don't. Explain.

Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_posteriori).

This is logically valid.

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

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

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

PixyMisa

9th June 2007, 03:37 AM

The only way the argument itself could be invalid is if the initial premise is false.
The initial premise is false. It's an unsound conditional statement.

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

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

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

Conclusion: Evolution is true unless it's false.

Well, that sure is useful.

Premise 1 is true therefore the argument is valid and it proves evolution to be true. This isn't the way most science works because most of the time either the experiments or the hypothesis aren't valid and must be reworked.No.

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

Evolution isn't currently a hypothesis but a cold hard fact.You have to distinguish between the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution happened, and continues to happen; that is the fact. The Theory of Evolution tells us how it happens. That is, after all, what theories do.

Dustin Kesselberg

9th June 2007, 03:54 AM

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: Evolution is true unless it's false.

Well, that sure is useful.

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

No.

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

How?

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

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

PixyMisa

9th June 2007, 04:23 AM

Except your Premise 1A wouldn't refute evolution. There are a lot of leaps in phylogeny in the fossil record, this doesn't refute evolution.
No, Dustin, there aren't leaps, there are gaps. There's a huge gap in the evolutionary record for bats, for example, but given observed rates of evolutionary change, it is perfectly possible for bats to have evolved, and just our misfortune that we haven't found some pretty fossils to demonstrate this directly.

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

How?
Comprehensively.

That's true. Evolution happened. That's a fact. Thanks for making my point.
No.

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

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

D'rok

9th June 2007, 04:59 AM

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

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

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q

This is invalid.

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

The only way the argument itself could be invalid is if the initial premise is false. Premise 1 is true therefore the argument is valid and it proves evolution to be true.You are demonstrating yet again your misunderstanding of logic. Truth or falsity have nothing whatsoever to do with validity. This is really basic stuff.

This isn't the way most science works because most of the time either the experiments or the hypothesis aren't valid and must be reworked. Evolution isn't currently a hypothesis but a cold hard fact.The scientific method takes the logical form that I have described. Your argument is not the way science works. You are attempting (but not quite succeeding) to demonstrate how syllogistic logic works. Logic is not science.

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

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

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

Using Lisa's example:

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

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

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

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

jsfisher

9th June 2007, 05:33 AM

I didn't misstate it.

Oh, sure you did:
Gödel doesn't prove that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. His incompleteness theorems simply say that given a set of axioms any system of knowledge can never be totally complete.
(Emphasis added.)

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

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

A single quantity and a single quantity added together makes a double quantity never a triple quantity.
I have not idea what meaning this was intended to convey.

D'rok

9th June 2007, 06:38 AM

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

DUSTINUS TYRANNUS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-END-

Loss Leader

9th June 2007, 06:45 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beleth

9th June 2007, 12:49 PM

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

What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know.

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

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

His final response is as you see above.

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

strathmeyer

9th June 2007, 03:00 PM

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

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

Is that single and specific enough for you?

Dustin Kesselberg

9th June 2007, 09:36 PM

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

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

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

Comprehensively.

Explain.

No.

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

9th June 2007, 09:46 PM

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

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q

This is invalid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are correct that evolution is an observable fact. The testable hypothesis is Evolution via Natural Selection and I should have clarified that in my example. Sorry about that. But you are incorrect that science demonstrates facts through syllogistic logic.

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

Science tests hypotheses through the scientific method, and when the scientific method is stated deductively, it is both formally invalid and effective (when properly applied). The conclusions are not facts, but confirmations of hypotheses with varying degrees of probability.

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

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

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

Using Lisa's example:

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

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

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

A deductively valid argument is not relevant to the truth of the existence of god; a testable hypotheses confirmed by evidence is. You've asked us what evidence would confirm the god hypothesis to a degree of probability that we would consider to be subjectively certain.

No, I never used such wording.

You will always be able to throw counter-hypotheses at us and say "falsify this!", but you are only demonstrating your misunderstanding of your own question.

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

I asked this question in another thread and didn't get any real answers. Here's the question: What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

God being defined as the being conceived originator and ruler of the universe.

What would you accept as absolute proof of a God? Proof that can not be explained in any other way but through "God" as I defined him. Miracles, Magic, Prophecies, Visions can all be explained through other means which exclude a "God". So I'm curious what proof any of you who do not believe in a God would accept as proof of a God.

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

9th June 2007, 09:50 PM

Oh, sure you did:

(Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

PixyMisa

9th June 2007, 09:50 PM

The cambrian explosion showed some pretty drastic leaps in the fossil record.
No. What it showed was the second evolution of large multicellular animals (that we know of).
These aren't just "gaps" but accelerated evolutionary change.
Accelerated in what aspects and with respect to what?

Finding rabbits in pre-Cambrian strata has nothing to do with the initial premise I made.
It does, because it shows one example (out of an infinite number of examples) of how your premise can be proven false.

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

I never said I could prove the "Theory of evolution", I said I could prove "Evolution". You can't prove theories in science, that's not how it works. However you can prove facts.
If that is all you are trying to do, then your syllogism is tautological. Evolution is gradual phylogenetic change. If you observe gradual phylogenetic change, you have observed evolution, leaving nothing to prove.

Dustin Kesselberg

9th June 2007, 09:55 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

9th June 2007, 09:57 PM

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

Be specific and give an example then.

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

Except I made no such claims.

Is that single and specific enough for you?

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

Dustin Kesselberg

9th June 2007, 10:00 PM

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

Accelerated in what aspects and with respect to what?

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

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

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

How would it prove any one of my premises false?

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

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

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

Except Evolution!

PixyMisa

9th June 2007, 10:39 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Yes, Dustin, I know what the Cambrian Explosion was.

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

How would it prove any one of my premises false?
Your first premise is a conditional. Such an observation would falsify it.

Tell me how my logic is invalid.
If you are simply referring to the fact of evolution, it's tautological.

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

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

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

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

9th June 2007, 11:40 PM

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

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

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

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

How so?

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

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

Premise 2-We see Premise 1 as being true.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

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

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

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

Already done, Dustin.

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

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

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

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

No. It would be more like this...

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

Premise 2: I see a feline mammal usually having thick soft fur and no ability to roar.

Conclusion: I see a cat.

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

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

qayak

10th June 2007, 12:10 AM

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

10th June 2007, 12:14 AM

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

Yes.

PixyMisa

10th June 2007, 12:37 AM

Ha, 10 million years is quite sudden from a geological or evolutionary standpoint. Nice try.
And can be a considerable time in evolution.
How so?Like this:

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

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

Premise 2-We see Premise 1 as being true.You can't see premise 1 as being true. Premise 1 is a conditional statement, not something you can observe. All you can do is assert it.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.
This form of your syllogism says:

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

That makes no sense.

It's true that seeing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species would make evolution true, however this isn't the argument. The argument is that IF we see them then evolution is true. Premise 1 is stating a fact and isn't the argument itself therefore isn't tautological.If premise 1 is stating a fact, why do you phrase it as an argument? Phrase it as a statement of fact.

The second premise states that it's true that we see it therefore evolution is true.The second statement is merely an assertion of the validity of the earlier conditional.

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

Point out the exact post and section of post where this has 'already been done'.Last two pages, every reply except your own. And this reply, again.

No. It would be more like this...

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

Premise 2: I see a feline mammal usually having thick soft fur and no ability to roar.

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

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

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

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

Not a lot of progress there.

Dustin Kesselberg

10th June 2007, 01:00 AM

And can be a considerable time in evolution.

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

Like this:

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

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

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

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

This form of your syllogism says:

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

That makes no sense.

Nope.

Premise 1: If P then Q.

Premise 2: P

Conclusion: Therefore Q.

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

Premise 1: If a dog then a mammal.

Premise 2: A dog.

Conclusion: A mammal.

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

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

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

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

Yes, you would.

HOW?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a lot of progress there.

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

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

Premise 2-We see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

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

PixyMisa

10th June 2007, 02:45 AM

Yes, However still sudden considering the amount of time life existed but didn't start rapidly evolving.
So, "sudden" is relative, and for it to have any particular meaning you have to carefully define where and what and why, and so forth.

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

And take a chance to read up on the Ediacaran fauna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota), which came out of a sort of pre-Cambrian explosion. An extensive fauna of large soft-bodied animals that pre-dated the Cambrian Explosion. Life was indeed evolving rapidly prior to the Cambrian Explosion.

Our finding a rabbit fossil (of the age) in pre-Cambrian strata then that would just pull rabbit evolution all of the way back to that time and would not negate evolution itself.
Uh, no. There are no rabbit precursors in the pre-Cambrian. There is nothing for rabbits to eat; there is no terrestrial life at all.

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

Moreover, No rabbits exist in Pre-Cambrian strata.
Proof, please?

Premise 2 states that the condition in premise 1 is true.
That might be what you mean. That's not what it says.

Premise 1: If P then Q.

Premise 2: P

This does not map onto your previous syllogism.

Premise 1 doesn't equal evolution. It's an "IF". If we observe N then evolution is true. Premise 2 says we observe N.
No it doesn't. Premise 2 says we observe Premise 1, an impossibility, since you can't observe a conditional.

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

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

HOW?
As explained earlier.

I looked and can find no such thing. Please paste it.
You did see it, because you replied to it. You disagreed. You are wrong. The reasons you are wrong have also been supplied. You disagree with those. You are wrong again, for reasons that have also been supplied.

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

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

Premise 2-We see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.
Not that this is NOT what you wrote earlier.

Conclusion- Evolution is true.That follows; i.e. the syllogism is internally valid. Sort of. The wording is poor; for example, what do you mean when you say "Evolution is true"?Now that it fits with D'rok's change, explain the problem here.
The syllogism is valid, this time. None of its previous forms were valid.

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

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

So your syllogism translates to:

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

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

Dustin Kesselberg

10th June 2007, 03:31 AM

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

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

And take a chance to read up on the Ediacaran fauna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota), which came out of a sort of pre-Cambrian explosion. An extensive fauna of large soft-bodied animals that pre-dated the Cambrian Explosion. Life was indeed evolving rapidly prior to the Cambrian Explosion.

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

Proof, please?

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

Not that this is NOT what you wrote earlier.

Well it's what I'm writing now.

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

You don't know the definition of Evolution?

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

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

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

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

So your syllogism translates to:

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

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

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

PixyMisa

10th June 2007, 04:51 AM

It was sudden in relation to evolutionary and geological time periods.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Try rephrasing it.

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

Proof that rabbits don't exist in pre-Cambrian fauna? You prove they do. You're making the positive assertion.
And what might this positive assertion be, Dustin?

Do you believe rabbits exist in pre-Cambrian fauna?
We have no evidence at all of any such thing.

You've already said yourself that they couldn't survive.
Of course they couldn't. That's why it would be something of a surprise to find that they did.

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

You don't know the definition of Evolution?
Which evolution? Theory or fact?

What I'm stating is that IF we see A then B is true. We see A therefore B is true. What my syllogism proves is that evolution is true.
It only does this if your first conditional is also valid. You also need to define what you mean when you say "evolution", and what you mean when you assign a truth value to that term.

No. It doesn't. The syllogism doesn't define 'transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species' as evolution but rather simply states that the fact that we see this means evolution is true.
Define evolution, Dustin. Your definition. And define what you mean when you say evolution is "true". Then we may be able to make some progress.

Dustin Kesselberg

10th June 2007, 05:15 AM

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

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

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

And what might this positive assertion be, Dustin?

That rabbits existed in pre-Cambrian strata.

We have no evidence at all of any such thing.

Do you believe rabbits exist in pre-Cambrian fauna?

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

Otherwise known as an "impossibility". :rolleyes:

Which evolution? Theory or fact?

Just "Evolution".

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

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

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

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

True-consistent with fact or reality; not false.

jsfisher

10th June 2007, 07:00 AM

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

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

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

Your analogy is defective on several counts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D'rok

10th June 2007, 07:29 AM

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

You consider this to be a useful argument?

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q.

Or put into your words.

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

Premise 2-Evolution is true

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This statement:
We see Premise 1 as being true.

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

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

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

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

Premise is factual. Logic is valid. Conclusion is "True".Well now...that is improvement. Congratulations. Compare that with this statement:
The only way the argument itself could be invalid is if the initial premise is false. Premise 1 is true therefore the argument is valid and it proves evolution to be true.The truth of the first premise has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument.

But you can make logical arguments to show that the facts science has found are...factual.No. Facts are not determined by argument.

I never claimed that. I just said I can demonstrate a fact through syllogistic logic using the facts of science as a premise.Science uses inductive and deductive reasoning to come to proofs all of the time. Given a specific set of axioms about our basic existence we can 'prove' given a set of factual premises that something is true. Let's try it here:

-- snipped evolution argument --

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

You're missing something. Science forms hypothesis through observable facts and THEN tests them through the scientific method and puts the facts together in a consistent framework that predicts future phenomena.Sure. But these facts are not determined through argument...they are determined through observation. The hypothesis is the bit that can be stated syllogistically, not the facts.

Or maybe your first premise is too faulty and uncertain ever to be a valid proof of anything.Dustin....TRUTH HAS NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON VALIDITY! How many times must it be said?

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

No one but a dolt doubts that since we see evolution in the fossil record, evolution occurs. However anyone can see that prayer restoring amputated limbs doesn't necessarily equal "God".Boy I love repeating myself. PRAYER RESTORING AMPUTATED LIMBS IS NOT PROOF OF GOD. IT IS EVIDENCE THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE WOULD FIND COMPELLING ENOUGH TO ASSUME THAT GOD EXISTS. THIS IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ME!

...and so the Sophoclean tragedy is replayed.

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

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

No, I never used such wording.Perhaps I should cut you some slack, as you have to juggle multiple responses while I only have to deal with you. So here is a recap of what you asked me:

What would you accept as PROOF of a God?
From deductive logic? Nothing. No such proof is possible.
How about inductive?
Then that wouldn't be a proof - it would be at best a probability.
Well what 'evidence' would you accept for a God where the probability that "God" is the only explanation is so vast that any reasonable person would believe in it?

And then things just went downhill from there.

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

Scientific theories aren't supposed to be "irrefutable", though many theories are indeed 'irrefutable' in the sense they are absolutely true.No scientific theory is an explanation for phenomena that is absolutely true. Go back and read what I said about Hegel and Absolute Truth in your other thread. You are Hegelian to the core and don't even know it.

(Sorry about the shouting)

Loss Leader

10th June 2007, 07:53 AM

Boy, Dustin, you're a real jerk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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