3
   

What is Proof?

 
 
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 02:48 pm
Show me the evidence. . .
How many times have you either said that or read that?
Well, don't we all have the same evidence?
Are there any scientific studies where the results are held secret?
Are there any written scriptures that may be seen only in the inner sanctum?
Let me know if I missed anything. . .

So, should we not be more concerned with how we evaluate the evidence? What is proof?

Well, there is a thing called logical proof. A good example is the syllogism.You may have encountered syllogisms if you studied geometry. But then, you must know that syllogisms are valid only if you accept the axioms. Is a straight line the shortest distance between 2 points? In plane geometry, yes. In reality, no. But without geometry, we would struggle to build things like our houses. When it comes to logical proof for God's existence, I know of no logical argument that can survive scrutiny of its axioms.

Well then, there is scientific proof. Just think of the fine things we enjoy provided for us by science. How could we enjoy this forum? Nevertheless, even the most rigorously established scientific laws are subject to falsification. 100% certainty, to my knowledge, is never seriously claimed.

I've always found entertaining the proclamation of many philosophers that everything is relative - there are no absolutes. That is, except the proclamation itself.

Well, how about the proof established by the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence we may encounter in matters of law? We couldn't have an organized society without our laws. Nevertheless, we have heard many stories of innocent men swinging from the gallows.

So, how can we find spiritual proof, if it even exists? I suggest that knowledge of God is available to us only on a personal level unaffected by erudition. You have to dig for it as Solomon said ". . . search for it as for silver. . ." Why silver? Because silver is harder to find than gold.

Well now, does that seem like I'm taking about faith? Yup!

We all have varying degrees of faith in some things, right? The sun will rise tomorrow, I'm sure. We'll have food tomorrow, most of us. Our families will stick by us, we hope. Personally, I have faith in these things. But how did I get it? Answer: I got faith in these things by experience.
For me, the passage at Psalm 34: 8 has much merit.
Quote:
O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.
Perhaps this is more than many are willing to invest. It was too much for me, as well, until I found reasons for me to make it worthwhile. I can get to that later. But for now:

I leave it for my fellow a2kers to slice and dice my above text.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 1,461 • Replies: 65
No top replies

 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 03:58 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
Perhaps this is more than many are willing to invest. It was too much for me, as well, until I found reasons for me to make it worthwhile.


This need to believe in the supernatural, and further, the dogma of a particular religion, is different from the belief that one comes to from the observation of natural phenomenon, as in the sun rising every morning. You're conflating the two.
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 04:43 pm
@neologist,
Follow the white rabbit...
Proof
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 05:23 pm
@tsarstepan,
Well, doggone. I forgot about the only proof that matters to some.
Drunk
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 09:36 pm
@neologist,
And after all that flowery and erudite sounding talk about Proof, you come up with this little ditty:
neologist wrote:
I suggest that knowledge of God is available to us only on a personal level unaffected by erudition.
The very antithesis of Proof.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 09:52 pm
Poof.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 10:55 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
And after all that flowery and erudite sounding talk about Proof, you come up with this little ditty:
neologist wrote:
I suggest that knowledge of God is available to us only on a personal level unaffected by erudition.
rosborne979 wrote:
The very antithesis of Proof.
I thought I made it clear that proof on a personal level is equivalent to faith. I realize its implications.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2017 11:04 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
This need to believe in the supernatural, and further, the dogma of a particular religion, is different from the belief that one comes to from the observation of natural phenomenon, as in the sun rising every morning. You're conflating the two.
No, you have failed to note that every jot and tittle of my belief has been subject to personal scrutiny. It differs from epistemological proof in that you cannot replicate my experience. You would have to choose to experience it yourself. Obviously, before you can make such a choice you would need a reason.

I haven't talked about reasons.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 12:59 am
@neologist,
You have suggested we look at your selected quote...
Quote:
O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Surely the key contentious word there is 'good' even if we assume that 'the Lord' is meaningful. A historical hiatus in Christian belief resulted from the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 in which the 'faithful' attending prayers in the cathedral were decimated, and the 'heathens' who didn't survived. Then we might consider the controversy over Mother Theresa, who tended the sick but preached the 'anti birth control' policy of the Catholic Church in a country where unwanted children are abandoned or worse. None of this is helped by paedophilia scandals.
And all the above only considers Catholicism. We have not even touched on genocides or current natural disasters for which presumably the Lord's 'mysterious ways' need to be invoked !
So instead of ' blessed is the man that trusteth in him' it looks we should be saying 'wise is the man who distrusteth palliatives'.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 01:57 am
@neologist,
"Every jot and tittle?" How revealing: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled., Matthew, Chapter Five, Verse Eighteen, in the King James version.

This is a case of name your poison, and you have named yours. That's all the proof that I need that what we are dealing with here is your preferred delusion.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 07:20 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
This need to believe in the supernatural, and further, the dogma of a particular religion, is different from the belief that one comes to from the observation of natural phenomenon, as in the sun rising every morning. You're conflating the two.
No, you have failed to note that every jot and tittle of my belief has been subject to personal scrutiny. It differs from epistemological proof in that you cannot replicate my experience. You would have to choose to experience it yourself. Obviously, before you can make such a choice you would need a reason.

I haven't talked about reasons.

You say no, but proceed to illustrate precisely why it's different. That you can't see that is your failure.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 08:08 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
You have suggested we look at your selected quote...
Quote:
O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.
fresco wrote:
Surely the key contentious word there is 'good' even if we assume that 'the Lord' is meaningful. A historical hiatus in Christian belief resulted from the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 in which the 'faithful' attending prayers in the cathedral were decimated, and the 'heathens' who didn't survived. Then we might consider the controversy over Mother Theresa, who tended the sick but preached the 'anti birth control' policy of the Catholic Church in a country where unwanted children are abandoned or worse. None of this is helped by paedophilia scandals.
And all the above only considers Catholicism. We have not even touched on genocides or current natural disasters for which presumably the Lord's 'mysterious ways' need to be invoked !
So instead of ' blessed is the man that trusteth in him' it looks we should be saying 'wise is the man who distrusteth palliatives'.
In fact, I believe it was John Wesley who, in 1755 declared that "sin is the moral cause of earthquakes." in an effort to defame Catholicism.
I choose not to indict God for the sins of the priesthood. Should an atheist commit a crime, I would not charge his atheism. I know of no doctrine which will guarantee perfection,
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 08:14 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
"Every jot and tittle?" How revealing: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled., Matthew, Chapter Five, Verse Eighteen, in the King James version.

This is a case of name your poison, and you have named yours. That's all the proof that I need that what we are dealing with here is your preferred delusion.
You have every right to call it a delusion. Given what I have already said about proof, I have to be constantly aware of that.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 08:20 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
This need to believe in the supernatural, and further, the dogma of a particular religion, is different from the belief that one comes to from the observation of natural phenomenon, as in the sun rising every morning. You're conflating the two.
neologist wrote:
No, you have failed to note that every jot and tittle of my belief has been subject to personal scrutiny. It differs from epistemological proof in that you cannot replicate my experience. You would have to choose to experience it yourself. Obviously, before you can make such a choice you would need a reason.

I haven't talked about reasons.
InfraBlue wrote:
You say no, but proceed to illustrate precisely why it's different. That you can't see that is your failure.
Sorry if I did not make it clear that, in my mind, I am convinced that it is equivalent
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 08:44 am
@neologist,
So the aberrant priests and Mother Theresa 'who trusteth' are still 'blessed' according to your quote ? Wink
And of course it is totally illogical to classify atheism as either a 'doctrine' or 'social agency'.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 09:00 am
Captain Morgan 100 Proof Spiced Rum is a blend of Caribbean rums and select spices brings out the intensity of rum in full flavor, try it with Cola. A few hits of this and you will soon forget why you even came here.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 11:13 am
@neologist,
That you do this in your own mind does not negate your failure. It confirms it.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 02:54 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Captain Morgan 100 Proof Spiced Rum is a blend of Caribbean rums and select spices brings out the intensity of rum in full flavor, try it with Cola. A few hits of this and you will soon forget why you even came here.
Have you ever tasted the coconut, er loconut? Finally, I may have found at least one area of agreement on proof.
http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server2800/a04d0/products/12420/images/13189/captain-morgan-loconut-rum__12798.1487510654.1280.1280.jpg?c=2These other folks are so overly serious
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 03:00 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
So the aberrant priests and Mother Theresa 'who trusteth' are still 'blessed' according to your quote ? Wink
And of course it is totally illogical to classify atheism as either a 'doctrine' or 'social agency'.
I must be totally incoherent.
Let's try this: Each individual bears his own guilt or innocence.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 03:11 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
That you do this in your own mind does not negate your failure. It confirms it.
Let's try again.
1] I have faith that the sun will rise.
2] I also have faith that my family will stand by me.
Both beliefs are based on experience.
No doubt belief # 1 is universally understood. Belief # 2 is personal.
Are you suggesting that such beliefs are irrational?

I can assure you I have years and years of evidence to verify my faith in my family and even greater faith in my God.

That, sir, is the complete substance of my OP. It is not intended as logical or epistemological proof. Read into it whatever you wish.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is Proof?
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2017 at 03:18:38