10
   

What is Proof?

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 10:03 pm
@neologist,
Now you're changing the goalposts and conflating "faith" and "belief," and their various, and incongruous definitions.

Try disambiguating this muddle of thoughts.
ascribbler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 10:36 pm
@neologist,
In summary: your experience has lead you to an incontrovertible belief that there is a god.

I'm delighted for you, although I can't help but wonder why you need to post questions about it, given that it's a done deal in your mind.

Now that you've convinced yourself, go merrily about your other business.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 11:32 pm
@InfraBlue,
Sorry if you can't see the correlation between faith and belief.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2017 11:41 pm
@ascribbler,
Thank you for your scholarly advice.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 01:28 am
@neologist,
What youare saying amounts to 'evidence as far as belief is concerned lies in the eye of the beholder'. There is nothing wrong with that provided you understand the parochial nature of the rationality this entails which is famously illustrated by the anthopologist Evans-Pritchard's study of the Azande.

(The Azande had the concept of 'bewitchment by another' which could make you 'do bad things'. So when the imposed colonial justice system tried and covicted someone, they and their family, did not accept their guilt until 'verified' by examining the entrails of a ritually slaughtered chicken.)
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 10:51 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
What you are saying amounts to 'evidence as far as belief is concerned lies in the eye of the beholder'.
True, to a point. But the beholder, similar to the scientist, must continue to examine. . . .
fresco wrote:
There is nothing wrong with that provided you understand the parochial nature of the rationality this entails which is famously illustrated by the anthropologist Evans-Pritchard's study of the Azande.

(The Azande had the concept of 'bewitchment by another' which could make you 'do bad things'. So when the imposed colonial justice system tried and convicted someone, they and their family, did not accept their guilt until 'verified' by examining the entrails of a ritually slaughtered chicken.)
Interesting observation. Let me consult the flock.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 02:08 pm
@neologist,
Sure, faith and belief can be correlated in certain contexts. In regard to assumptions made about observations of natural phenomena, feelings about personal relationships, and assumptions made about the supernatural, faith and belief cannot be correlated.
ascribbler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 08:00 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
I suggest that knowledge of God is available to us only on a personal level unaffected by erudition.


Quote:
Thank you for your scholarly advice.


My pleasure. Thank you for your learned proof of the divinity.
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 10:48 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
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.


did you say that in reality a straight line is not the shortest distance between 2 points?

If you have proof for what you said, then post it here, because, lets say, traveling from two different locations in a city might require the route having curves plus the earth is not flat but spherical and the surface curved, but you can build a straight line highway and dig and make a canal and make the path straight from place to place. Of course it will cost a fortune doing so, but surely in reality, in physical reality it is possible to make a straight line between 2 points and being the shortest way, specially if you just do it between things separated at one inch of distance, a foot of distance, a yard of distance...

Perhaps you are following superfluous doctrines of dudes who call to themselves as "scientists" who by philosophical delusions have deduced such ideas, but in reality are just ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about.

Quote:
We all have varying degrees of faith in some things, right? The sun will rise tomorrow, I'm sure.


The Sun won't rise tomorrow, but the illusion of the Sun rising will happen again tomorrow.

And there is plenty proof the the Sun is not risen over the horizon but that our position is getting towards the Sun when our planet rotates.

Quote:
O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.


Do you have "proof" that people who trust in God are blessed?

How can you demonstrate it?

I knew a dude who trusted in God but died with cancer at the age of 45 years old.

Perhaps the proof of the blessing for trusting in God won't be given at this time but in the new era, the new heavens and new earth.

By now, instead of "proof" what it rules is faith.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 02:26 am
@cameronleon,
Laughing Define 'in reality'. Question

For the many years I have been a member of this forum most posters have assumed that 'reality' is a realm independent of the obsevational needs of humans. Even if it were meaningful as such, it would inaccessible since all we call 'data' are processed by our human perceptual systems.

Neologist is quite correct in questioning the concept of 'proof' as applied to theist beliefs by pointing out that proof depends on the acceptance of axioms.

The 'shortesr distance' axiom only becomes problematic where 'curvature of space' gets involved in which 'straight lines' have no currency, and where 'shortest' becomes related to 'space-time' rather than merely to space. This illustrates that the meaning of an axiom is embedded in the context of its usage.

Perhaps Neologist is trying to demonstrate that 'atheism' based on 'lack of proof of God' is untenable. If so, I who call myself 'an atheist' totally agree with that. My atheism is based on the lack of psychological need for a 'God' concept and the historical evidence that theism is pernicious at the social level.

cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 09:17 am
@fresco,
Quote:
For the many years I have been a member of this forum most posters have assumed that 'reality' is a realm independent of the obsevational needs of humans. Even if it were meaningful as such, it would inaccessible since all we call 'data' are processed by our human perceptual systems.


We have different kinds of "reality".

Your dreams are real, your imaginations do exist in your brain, and by such images and voices are real inside your brain.

We have the new "virtual reality".

We have also the "physical reality" which is the base of science when you talk about physics, biology, etc.

Physical reality is what it can be tested, observed with the senses. The observation may be direct or indirect observation, but it is perceived by the senses.

Science is not about mixtures like imaginations and reality. In science, what is it objective is what it counts, subjective is matter of other branches of knowledge.

Science, however, can study the action or reaction of humans or living species in front of subjective, understanding that what is observed and tested is the individual, not so the subjective.

At the bottom of all human knowledge, you lack of senses, you lack of capability to perceive, then you have no knowledge, even if knowledge is in your genes by inheritance or whatever, without the senses you are nothing.

For this reason, science is based 100% in what sensation and perception allow us to learn.

Quote:
Neologist is quite correct in questioning the concept of 'proof' as applied to theist beliefs by pointing out that proof depends on the acceptance of axioms.

The 'shortest distance' axiom only becomes problematic where 'curvature of space' gets involved in which 'straight lines' have no currency, and where 'shortest' becomes related to 'space-time' rather than merely to space. This illustrates that the meaning of an axiom is embedded in the context of its usage.


And this is your problem.

Einstein wasn't a genius but a poor retarded man.

There is not such a thing as "space time" because time doesn't exist physically.

So, there is no curvature of space time.

End of that fantasy.

The shortest distance between 2 points in physical reality is a straight line.

Quote:
Perhaps Neologist is trying to demonstrate that 'atheism' based on 'lack of proof of God' is untenable. If so, I who call myself 'an atheist' totally agree with that. My atheism is based on the lack of psychological need for a 'God' concept and the historical evidence that theism is pernicious at the social level.


You are giving a personal opinion of yours,but such is not the opinion of other atheists.

A man who stands with the rules of science can deny the existence of a god by lack of physical evidence of such an existence.

On the other hand, questions like, who wrote all that information storage in the cells, claims for a intellectual mind capable to do that task. However, it won't pass of becoming a hypothesis only.

Many people just come from Missouri, and say "you'll have to show me" and if you don't, then they won't believe in a god.

If you look closely to the biblical narration, the existence of a god has been accepted mostly by spreading the words. It is noticeable in the bible that faith is obtained essentially by "listening", in other words, somebody convinces you that god indeed does exist.

But, evidence? None.

Miracles are not evidence that a god exists.

Then, the existence of a God is accepted as a belief, not as a "proof" but as a belief.



fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 09:28 am
@cameronleon,
You wrote
Quote:
And this is your problem.
Einstein wasn't a genius but a poor retarded man.
There is not such a thing as "space time" because time doesn't exist physically.
So, there is no curvature of space time.
End of that fantasy.
The shortest distance between 2 points in physical reality is a straight line.


Laughing Not my problem I assure you ! But thankyou for your personal opinions.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 09:32 am
@neologist,
Relating the concept of proof with Metaphysics doesn't work, and much less when one wants to specify from general ontological hints to things like personal gods. The whole debate is useless. Anyway when you get sick and feel the need to see a doctor I am pretty sure your acessement of your health had a fair enough range of proof to move your azz down to the hospital... Wink
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 06:32 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Sure, faith and belief can be correlated in certain contexts. In regard to assumptions made about observations of natural phenomena, feelings about personal relationships, and assumptions made about the supernatural, faith and belief cannot be correlated.
Really?
Forgive me if this is too personal; but are you married? Did you and your wife get to know each other well enough before you were married, so that you each believed the other would be faithful?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 06:39 pm
@cameronleon,
Quote:
did you say that in reality a straight line is not the shortest distance between 2 points?

If you have proof for what you said, then post it here, because, lets say, traveling from two different locations in a city might require the route having curves plus the earth is not flat but spherical and the surface curved, but you can build a straight line highway and dig and make a canal and make the path straight from place to place. Of course it will cost a fortune doing so, but surely in reality, in physical reality it is possible to make a straight line between 2 points and being the shortest way, specially if you just do it between things separated at one inch of distance, a foot of distance, a yard of distance...
It's called a geodesic.
Did you see the last eclipse? Or did you consider the news reports? A few of the documentaries reminded us that even light will not always travel in a straight line.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 06:41 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
Perhaps Neologist is trying to demonstrate that 'atheism' based on 'lack of proof of God' is untenable.
Yeah, pretty much.
Also, faith is not necessarily credulity.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 06:42 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Exactly.
Football and Ping Pong are two different things
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 07:51 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Not my problem I assure you ! But thankyou for your personal opinions.


Sure, you are welcomed.

By the way, check about the detection of the existence of time. As you won't find any evidence online and less in any journal of science, you will find out that I have pronounced a fact when I said that time doesn't exist and by such the personal opinions of that mental retarded of Einstein in his relativity fables are good for nothing.
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 07:54 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
It's called a geodesic.
Did you see the last eclipse? Or did you consider the news reports? A few of the documentaries reminded us that even light will not always travel in a straight line.


You said, "will not always travel in a straight line".

And who is talking about traveling as the only way to prove the axiom?

You can use a measurement tape or a ruler between two points and prove that the shortest way is always the straight line.

Hello?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2017 12:18 am
@cameronleon,
Smile
I know all about 'time as a psychological concept',and have even used it myself in issues where the concept of 'beginning' is questionable ! But the issue here is that you appear to be completely ignorant about paradigmatic modelling and contextual semantics.(Kuhn, Wittgenstein, Derrida et al) nor do you seem to understand that our concept of 'physicality' is a function of our species specific percetuql system (Kant, Heisenberg). All of this renders your 'straight line' assertion completely facile and as philosophically vacuous as your 'lack of physical evidence for God' assertion.

Sorry, if you think this is a bit 'heavy' . I was going to 'keep my mouth shut' on your anti Einstein twaddle etc, but your follow up indicated that you needed to be 'sorted out'.

You seem to be going in for long assertive unreferenced speeches . But I have no intention of commenting further on the points I make above. If interesred you can find them well argued and illustrated by investigating my dozen years of posting history here.


 

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?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 07:09:42