What is Proof?

@peacecrusader888,

peacecrusader888 wrote:

Is it a proof that God exists?

Is it ****.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Correction:

Issyt ****.

0 Replies

@peacecrusader888,

Quote:

But the child was born dead. So there is no milk from the mother. Besides, is there any skeleton and hair from the milk of the mother?

Because we can't fully understand everything we observe in the universe, that is not a reason to give credit that God exists.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

It's not a mystery, the material for making the beak is in the yolk. The biochemical process by which the embryo develops is understood by science and not at all mysterious.

Who owns you, izzythepush and cameronleon?

1 Reply

@peacecrusader888,

I think for myself. I can't talk about Cameronleon, he's an unreasoning bigot not worth my time. You at least I talk to, even though you ask such daft questions. Next time the Spirit of Ama comes to Earth it should try going to school.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I think for myself. I can't talk about Cameronleon, he's an unreasoning bigot not worth my time. You at least I talk to, even though you ask such daft questions. Next time the Spirit of Ama comes to Earth it should try going to school.

Do you find my questions daft or you cannot answer them?

1 Reply

@peacecrusader888,

Your questions are daft and easy to answer. You're the only one who has problems with basic science.

You're trying to prove the existence of God by claiming certain things are miracles. A miracle is something beyond scientific explanation, yet the examples you gave are far from miraculous.

And now, when you've run out of ideas you're implying those who disagree with you are owned by Satan.

Wouldn't Satan want to portray believers as idiots with no understanding of science? Wouldn't he want to make their belief in a stupid, senile god appear so ridiculous that the only response is ridicule?

That's all you've achieved with your bizarre appeal to the spirit of MC Ama and your inability to understand things most primary school kids have grasped.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

It's not a mystery, the material for making the beak is in the yolk. The biochemical process by which the embryo develops is understood by science and not at all mysterious.

It is just a deformity.

Before, the birds had teeth like any other animal, but due to environment changes, it affected to the birds by losing the tail, had the fusion of bones and greatly reducing of teeth size.

This is a deformity which was inherited by the following generations.

Look at the image below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus

Cut off the tail and make its mouth a beak.

You can see a huge chicken.

The process is called degeneration, there is no evolution.

The bird known as T Rex lost its tail, and his teeth were reduced in size and the fusion of bones became a beak. This is due to affected genes by chemical toxic fumes and contaminated water and food. The cause was possibly the action of a meteorite or rain of meteorites producing chemical reactions when touching ground.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

It's no wonder that your thread's gone nowhere given your disarrayed thoughts.

I count on you for your expert sciolism.
But I concur there have been better threads.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Experimental side is ,for me anyways ;proof

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

My skin is water PROOF

0 Replies

What is proof? Proof is validation of natural law. Natural laws are the only reality governing all manifested, and yet to be manifested reality. Proof though, doesn't really exist for us as we think it does. Our senses and the minds beliefs about the nature of reality, exist as the interface between natural law, and the conclusions we draw about it, that we label as proof. In the end, proof is whatever we are willing to accept, and it either is in alignment with natural law,...or not.

0 Replies

In my younger years, I was quite curious about other peoples beliefs. I visited several different churches to listen to what they had to say on that day. I even visited the ones that a considered more out there to the general public - a mormon, and a JW church.

The interesting thing was my experience in the JW church. It was on their holiest day of the year (can't accurately recall what it was meant to be about). What was interesting was that when I entered this church, it seemed to me that I felt an intense feeling of holiness (whatever that is).

Now that bothered me. Why should I experience such a feeling from just walking in to a place?

It wasn't until many years later that I read about the human sympathetic system etc that I understood that our body is hardwired to mimic what other people are feeling. There's a reasons that we, in general:
- find it hard to stay calm when a person is mad at us
- prefer being around happy people
- don't enjoy being around a lot of negativity
- etc.
Our bodies mimic such emotions. It's necessary to empathy. It's necessary to recognition of safety or danger etc. It is no doubt one of the contributing factors for people doing in groups what they wouldn't normally do as an individual.

The point of this observation is - if our bodies are so influenced by others, and we are not aware of it...then any belief about 'holiness' (or similar) based on our internal experience or observations, becomes rather suspect.

That said, in many ways, I share Neologists cynicism about proof. In particular, I think that perhaps every person who has bagged other peoples beliefs for being delusional, also have numerous beliefs within themselves created through similar pathways. It's one of the reasons I equate patriotism, political ideology , many economic beliefs, and a few other belief systems, to religion. Particularly when they create 'certainty' of righteousness.

I include myself in possession of such beliefs, because once you start looking at peoples beliefs and how they are formed - it seems to me, to be mostly unavoidable to possess numerous such beliefs.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Well said !
The concepts of 'truth' and 'reality' are both a function of social context. Indeed what else could any concept be, since its transient 'values' are transmitted by the social medium we call 'language' with all its interpersonal, cultural and anthropocentric baggage ?

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Well said !
The concepts of 'truth' and 'reality' are both a function of social context. Indeed what else could any concept be, since its transient 'values' are transmitted by the social medium we call 'language' with all its interpersonal, cultural and anthropocentric baggage ?

"are both a function"

...you are uniteligeble everytime you assert while trying to not assert...

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The concepts of 'truth' and 'reality' are both a function of social context. Indeed what else could any concept be, since its transient 'values' are transmitted by the social medium we call 'language' with all its interpersonal, cultural and anthropocentric baggage ?

Well, I would say that the vast majority meet this criteria.

I suspect that discussion of this subject would occur along similar lines to that of discussions on consciousness.

I'd make a few observations:
- I once I started a mental experiment (after noticing an effect of a mental exercise), that lead to me forming a concept of my own on how a particular part of my mind works. , and
- I have read very widely and in some areas, have come to conclusions that I have never read.
- some philosophers arrive at new conclusions never before espoused by their society.

As a reminder, for clarity, the above is made purely in relation to the subject of concepts.

Language and it's influence is another topic, though from a previous thread it seems to me that the idea that concepts form before language (rather than language forms concepts), seems foreign to a number of philosophers.

In any event, I rather respect how Neologist chooses his beliefs. It seems a lot more thoughtful than most. And his sense of self (which probably means something different to you) shows up in his replies.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You are correct in thinking that my concept of 'self' (the 'committee' view) tends to color all communicative exchanges including this one. That member of the 'neolgist' committee which has been contextually elected to' argue against philosophical 'non absolutism' is closely allied to other neologist committee members whose social viability requires a 'God concept' for their integrity. Its argument that 'a proclamation of 'non absolutism' is itself 'absolutist' is merely a play on the same limitation of 'logic' encapsulated by Russell's Paradox, later to be deconstructed by Wittgenstein's linguistic dismissals of logical positivisn, which implied that 'logic' was subservient to general contextual semantics.
So, whereas I agree with you that languageper se could be considered peripheral to a discussion of 'proof', its role as the currency of social contexts, including forum exchanges, cannot be simply pushed under the carpet. At the end of the day, the word 'proof', is like a banknote whose value is dependent on agreement between users, not some nebulous 'gold standard'. In that sense words cannot have 'absolute' value.
I should add that here you are observing a manifestation of 'the fresco committe' evoked by your intelligent replies. There are other members of that committee who quite happily operate at a level where concepts like 'proof' go unchallenged in secular contexts.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

So, whereas I agree with you that languageper se could be considered peripheral to a discussion of 'proof', its role as the currency of social contexts, including forum exchanges, cannot be simply pushed under the carpet.

It wasn't my intention to imply that it should be pushed under the carpet . My understanding of language is that it does a number of things:
- it structures the brain / creates pathways for thoughts to follow
- it has character traits (English is power, French is romantic, Arabic is passionate, etc) that influence how the culture evolves of the specific language speakers
- it's concepts create limitations

Further, words themselves are concepts, and the structure of language is also a concept. But what a word means to you, is not precisely the same as what it means to me, and I structure my communication slightly different to how you structure yours. There are many implications of this understanding.

And yet those are not all the aspects of language, nor the mind.

Quote:

is closely allied to other neologist committee members whose social viability requires a 'God concept' for their integrity

I don't know that I agree with this conclusion, and the use of social viability and integrity in the same sentence creates issues.

P.S. I find the use of the term 'committee' bemusing, but it seems easy enough to understand. I would use the term aspects. Committee implies distinct personalities, whereas aspects does not require personalities, but can be portions/sections of a persons mind that compete within the same being/individual..

1 Reply

@vikorr,

For an extreme view of a fragmented self I'll give you a Gurdjieff quotation.

Quote:

“Man such as we know him .....cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.
Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says ‘I.’ And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatever for this assumption. Man’s every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole. And the Whole never expresses itself, for the simple reason that it exists, as such, only physically as a thing, and in the abstract as a concept. Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small I’s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking ‘I.’ And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man’s name is legion.” (Gurdjieff)

Such a view tends to come from 'self observation', but even 'the committee' is more concrete than the 'delusion of self' in Buddhism, or the transience of 'self' suggested by Heidegger's phenomenology.

0 Replies

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, as an example, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines of reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

1 Reply

What is Proof?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know