... are mutually exclusive.

Faith lacks doubt.

Proof is the spawn of doubt. It's "doubt's requirement".

Refute.

Proof is never absolute.

Therefore, there is always some doubt.

Faith bridges the gap of uncertainty that exists in the absence of absolute proof.

Therefore the two are not only not mutually exclusive, but intimately linked.

Proof is never absolute.

Then it isn't proof.

Therefore, there is always some doubt.

Only for the faithless.

Faith bridges the gap of uncertainty that exists in the absence of absolute proof.

Proof cannot be other than absolute, or it isn't proof - it's evidence.

Therefore the two are not only not mutually exclusive, but intimately linked.

Therefore, faith and proof are still mutually exclusive.

(enjoyed your rebuttal btw, well done. thought you had me for a sec, maybe you do.. let's see where this goes.)

faith and proof are pure notions.

doubt lies between them.

EDIT: Oh, and an addendum to the post above...

I think that which is mutually exclusive is intimately linked by the exclusion.

Then it isn't proof.

This depends how you define the words. I personally find this debate pointless. If you define tail as a leg, how many legs does a cow have? :bugeye:

This depends how you define the words. I personally find this debate pointless. If you define tail as a leg, how many legs does a cow have? :bugeye:

Do you think it's as pointless as your posting in a pointless thread?

Do you think it's as pointless as your posting in a pointless thread?

Allmost, maybe I am missing something but this thread is as pointless as the Star Trek vs Star Wars thread. One can endlessly argue without real outcome. It reminds my the oranges vs appels debate. So, if any of you find this thread interesting, let me know why, please?
p.s. And how about my question on cow legs?

Proof is never absolute.

Then it isn't proof.



Ah, but is faith always absolute? I sure as hell don't think it is --and according to your logic, it therefore isn't faith.

But does that mean that true faith and true proof both don't exist? Are we stuck in a world ruled purely by doubt?

Are we stuck in a world ruled purely by doubt?I'm not sure.

Wes,
your refutation of my rebuttall to your original postulate appears to be based upon the absolute character of proof.

Here are some definitions taken from an online dictionary.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/proof
1. validation, proof, substantiation
the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something
3. proof, cogent evidence
any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something
5. proof
a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it

Please note that the absolute character of proof is not introduced until the third definition (two and four are unrelated to this topic). This suggests it is a lesser sense of the word.
Moreover, the sense in which it is offered - a formal series of statements - is typically, and in my experience always, prefaced by the application of axioms.

Axioms, as you are well aware, are presumptions that are held to be self evident. However, their validity is taken on faith.

Thus, we see that not only are faith and proof not mutually exclusive, but proof is wholly dependent upon faith.

So, if any of you find this thread interesting, let me know why, please? One can endlessly argue without real outcome.

Faith lacks doubt.

I can have faith that the pudding looks good enough to eat, but I can also have doubt because I know that the chef who made it usually mixes up his sugar for salt.

Proof is the spawn of doubt. It's "doubt's requirement

But if I get my friend Johnny Notastebuds to taste the pudding before I do, I still couldn't be certain that the proof is in the pudding.

Wes,
your refutation of my rebuttall to your original postulate appears to be based upon the absolute character of proof.

- and that of faith.

Certainly outside the scope of philosophy there are more utiliarian utilizations of the terms, but this is not my concern really. IMO, the spirit of either term demand "absolute", and the definitions below are justifications for colloquial usage.

Here are some definitions taken from an online dictionary.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/proof
1. validation, proof, substantiation
the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something
3. proof, cogent evidence
any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something
5. proof
a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it
Certaintly one can utilize words in many different contexts, blah blah. I'm speaking of what I consider the actual value of the terms. IMO, proof is simply "something else" if it's not absolute. If you have proved something, for the time that it is proved it cannot be questioned. That is not to say there cannot arise new causes of doubt - at which time "proof" changes its status to "evidence".

For instance, it has been proven to me by the act of experiencing it that I am typing this message right now. It is proven that I have had at least two daughters, both of whom reside at my residence... which is also proven to have a street address. It is proven that I work, etc. It's all proven to me of course. I have no doubt of any of it. Nothing you can say could cause me to doubt it. The evidence proves it to me.

I contend that utilization of the term outside of this scope is misnomer. The weaker forms of your offered definitions do not support the spirit of the term and lend to miscommunication.

Let me ask you... if proof isn't absolute, then why is it a different word than evidence or "a sensible conclusion"?

Certaintly it can be used loosely, but in such a case its usage shoudl be fairly established by context.

Personally, I find little use for the term if it is not "absolute".

Part of the reason I bring it up is for its bastardization in religious arguments.

Moreover, the sense in which it is offered - a formal series of statements - is typically, and in my experience always, prefaced by the application of axioms.

Indeed.

Axioms, as you are well aware, are presumptions that are held to be self evident. However, their validity is taken on faith.

A point which I've rambled upon in depth in numerous threads, as you're likely aware.

Thus, we see that not only are faith and proof not mutually exclusive, but proof is wholly dependent upon faith.

IMO, faith is not faith unless it is believed without "proof", and proof is not proof unless it also is substantiated beyond doubt. Thus, the scope of usage of either term is generally more limited that experienced in typical conversation.

There is a larger point at stake here that I saw earlier but it dissipated before I could capture it. I got caught up in the details and forgot. I'll get back to it eventually.

Faith lacks doubt.

I can have faith that the pudding looks good enough to eat, but I can also have doubt because I know that the chef who made it usually mixes up his sugar for salt.

Would you really call that "faith"? Seems to me it's "hope". At the moment it were to really become faith, you wouldn't have to hope. You would 'know'. If there were evidence introduced to you post-pudding that showed you to be wrong, you would either have to bullshit yourself as to why that evidence didn't really support your incorrectness, or lose your faith.

Proof is the spawn of doubt. It's "doubt's requirement

But if I get my friend Johnny Notastebuds to taste the pudding before I do, I still couldn't be certain that the proof is in the pudding.

Yeah it's only a requirement if one wants to be "sure".

Ah, but is faith always absolute? I sure as hell don't think it is --and according to your logic, it therefore isn't faith.

Yes.

But does that mean that true faith and true proof both don't exist? Are we stuck in a world ruled purely by doubt?

No.

It is absolutely proven to me that I typed this.

I have absolute faith that I exist.

... are mutually exclusive.

Faith lacks doubt.

Proof is the spawn of doubt. It's "doubt's requirement".

Refute.

Faith can be based on a foundation of proof; therefore, inclusive.

Hmm.. practically speaking we can mix it up however we like, calling whatever what we wish.

But while it is faith, it requires NO PROOF... or it's something other than faith don't you think?

It may have started as something leading towards proof, or have been considered as such at one time, but once it is faith, it's not faith unless it doesn't require proof...

And of course if it is proven, there is no need for faith right?

Hmm.

Maybe faith got you there but if it's proven, you can produce satisfactory evidence for yourself, or have experienced it in a way that satisfies your criteria for "proof"? But do you have to have faith that your memory serves your correctly regarding the proof?

Can faith and proof exist independently?

If the faithful doubt, are they faithful at the time they are doubting?

What proof is there, without faith in our ability to recognize it?

Would you really call that "faith"? Seems to me it's "hope".




Faith is surely just super optimistic opinion that things will be ok. Hence there is always room for doubt. But over riding view is one of optimisim. Athiests can experience faith in things being ok, without having 'faith' in something divine.

When we ask someone to have 'faith' we are asking them to have a belief in things being ok when there is no particular reason they should be, all wea re really saying is be optimistic, imagine a brighter outcome and nothing else. Believeeeeeeee

Positive thinking.

Hope is more wishing things will be ok but you are wracked with doubt, it's more of a pessimistic view.

There can be no absolutes. Humans are too complex to ever think in absolute terms anything.

Faith is NOT the absolute experince of knowing something is right or will occur.

I do not need faith to know my name is 'xyz' I KNOW it, I do not need faith to know the bus is due at 9.30am, it is due. So knowing something absolutely is not faith. Faith is blind optimism if you like and when one examines ones own blind optimism there is always room for doubt but it is pushed aside.

meanwhile proof

Whatever we have allegedly managed to prove on this planet of ours we have not been able to prove that we are actually experiencing the reality that eixsts outside our limited biological senses and interpettations, so when we say something is proved it is only proved in so much as we have gone as far as we are capable of going, but not neccessarily as far as it is possible to go. So when we examine proof there will always remain this doubt at least. Can we prove events actually occur one after the other or is this just the way our brain evaluates the information?

So to conclude faith and proof = just words

both words, both have 5 letters, both will be unlikely to feature in poetry ans very little rhymes with them if anything, so with these simialrities very much alike ;) yes it's late and I'M GOING BONKERS.

Hmm.. practically speaking we can mix it up however we like, calling whatever what we wish.

But while it is faith, it requires NO PROOF... or it's something other than faith don't you think?

It may have started as something leading towards proof, or have been considered as such at one time, but once it is faith, it's not faith unless it doesn't require proof...

And of course if it is proven, there is no need for faith right?

Hmm.

Maybe faith got you there but if it's proven, you can produce satisfactory evidence for yourself, or have experienced it in a way that satisfies your criteria for "proof"? But do you have to have faith that your memory serves your correctly regarding the proof?

Can faith and proof exist independently?

If the faithful doubt, are they faithful at the time they are doubting?

What proof is there, without faith in our ability to recognize it?


We might be working off of different definitons of faith. I am defining it as unconditional trust in *something* and in the context that it's being used it sounds like religious belief (i.e. acceptance as true without consideration to supportive / contradictive evidence). I'll re-evaluate given your definition :)

we can not prove anything only believe what we think we have proved unless someone can prove everything is real which you can't becaouse that is what you believe it becomes an forever going round cycle of proveing beliveing proveing beliveing no1 can prove we excist or don't excist you just can believe if you do or don't

I am defining it as unconditional trust in *something* and in the context that it's being used it sounds like religious belief (i.e. acceptance as true without consideration to supportive / contradictive evidence).

Didn't you just contradict yourself though? You just put conditions on your "unconditional trust".

I'll re-evaluate given your definition :)

I think we're working on the same def, unconditional trust I'll agree with, but you're putting conditions on it, aren't you?

Didn't you just contradict yourself though? You just put conditions on your "unconditional trust".



I think we're working on the same def, unconditional trust I'll agree with, but you're putting conditions on it, aren't you?

Hmmm... maybe. I honestly don't recall enough about what I was originally thinking on this thread. Here's a different angle to consider. Bobby has Faith in daddy. If daddy tells little Booby something then his trust in daddy leads to acceptance. One day reality contradicts something Bobby's daddy said with direct in-your-face proof. What happens in this situation? Are proof and faith mutually exclusive still?

Hmmm... maybe. I honestly don't recall enough about what I was originally thinking on this thread.

Lol, me either.

Here's a different angle to consider. Bobby has Faith in daddy. If daddy tells little Booby something then his trust in daddy leads to acceptance.

Acceptance of what? (anything daddy tells him?)

you said booby. :)

One day reality contradicts something Bobby's daddy said with direct in-your-face proof.

Bummer for bobby.

What happens in this situation?

That depends on bobby. If he is truly faithful, he denies the "proof", as it contradicts his faith. If he believes the "proof" then he loses his faith.

Are proof and faith mutually exclusive still?

I think so.

Acceptance of what? (anything daddy tells him?)


Yep


you said booby. :)

Hahahhahaha!



That depends on bobby. If he is truly faithful, he denies the "proof", as it contradicts his faith. If he believes the "proof" then he loses his faith.


Those are most certainly possible outcomes. What about the situation where Bobby accepts reality and retains faith in his father (regardless of the one instance that he was let down)? What about the practice of cognitive dissonance where both reality and his daddy are right?

What about the situation where Bobby accepts reality and retains faith in his father (regardless of the one instance that he was let down)?

Then he has denied no?

What about the practice of cognitive dissonance where both reality and his daddy are right?

Cognitive dissonance is the price of denial... but generally only bears a true cost when stimulous demands something of that particular conceptual relationship, so dissonance is nominal until what has been denied becomes questioned again, even indirectly. The denial creates a conceptual integration problem, which leads to conceptual discontinuity, which if amplified to the max, leads to complete mental chaos.

And that's why honesty is the best policy. :p

... are mutually exclusive.

Faith lacks doubt.

Proof is the spawn of doubt. It's "doubt's requirement".

Refute.

"Proveability" is weaker than absolute truth.

wemorris says, "IMO, faith is not faith unless it is believed without "proof", and proof is not proof unless it also is substantiated beyond doubt. "

For you doubt negates proof and faith.
Belief in something that you have proven to be true in your own system of thought is not faith, unless you are willing to concede that all knowledge is "faith", and nothing is known. In the english language the word "faith" is not an exact synonym for the word "knowledge". People didn't have "faith" that the earth was flat back in the day, they had incorrect knowledge. They knew it just as conclusively as you know anything you have "proven" within your own system of thought. And there are as many systems of "proof" on the planet as there are people, none of which are necessarily functional or accurate.
I think you have some correct ideas about the word "faith", as shown in your quote above, but overall you are misusing a word which has a meaning which is commonly accepted in the usage of our language and does not include lack of doubt. That is your own personal addition to the definition and is not accepted.

Your first post is hereby refuted on the basis of misuse of terms.

Your one sentence saying,
'faith is not faith unless it is believed without "proof"
is a better demonstration of faith and proof being mutually exclusive, because it is at least within the realms of proper english language usage.

... are mutually exclusive.

Faith lacks doubt.

Proof is the spawn of doubt. It's "doubt's requirement".

Refute.To have faith does not mean that we don't have doubt.

However 'proof' is not a requirement of faith. But we could still try to prove things if we want to. Scientists as well as other people have faith.

You say that proof is the spawn of doubt, may be, but how could we prove something? What would be proven?

All we can prove is scratching the surface, beyond the 'proof' are meanings and the doubt, that even if "proven" it could be proof of a different theory, or the theory they have might include infinite other variables and as such doesn't really teach us about reality but only helps us evaluate situations and evaluate which events would follow a certain event (or which events could be the trace of a past event).

Faith is needed so we don't need to prove everything that we need to respond to.

To have faith does not mean that we don't have doubt.

If you doubt, it isn't faith. It's doubt.

However 'proof' is not a requirement of faith.

Done been said.

I would add though, that proof (output) requires a faith (input), with some synthesis in between them.

But we could still try to prove things if we want to.

Of course.

Scientists as well as other people have faith.

Scientists are people. Some have faith in this or that.

You say that proof is the spawn of doubt, may be, but how could we prove something? What would be proven?

When "valid" criteria are set for "proof" and met, the hypothesis is "proven". Of course this ignores, because it's convenient for most people, that axioms are generally articles of faith (assumptions). For the purposes of proof, assumptions are taken as granted.

All we can prove is scratching the surface, beyond the 'proof' are meanings and the doubt, that even if "proven" it could be proof of a different theory, or the theory they have might include infinite other variables and as such doesn't really teach us about reality but only helps us evaluate situations and evaluate which events would follow a certain event (or which events could be the trace of a past event).

Proof is relevant to a defined scenario and does not necessarily extend beyond its scope.

Faith is needed so we don't need to prove everything that we need to respond to.

One doesn't necessarily need faith to assess something to which one needs to respond. An assessment of probability and simplification of the problem can suffice.

For you doubt negates proof and faith.

Yes.

Belief in something that you have proven to be true in your own system of thought is not faith, unless you are willing to concede that all knowledge is "faith", and nothing is known.

Not exactly. Knowledge is subjective and tentative. While it exists as knowledge, it is not doubted. As soon as it is doubted, it is not knowledge, but potential knowledge.

In the english language the word "faith" is not an exact synonym for the word "knowledge".

Ok.

People didn't have "faith" that the earth was flat back in the day, they had incorrect knowledge.

You can't establish that. Given what I know of people, I'd say it's safe to say that at least some people had faith that the earth is flat. No?

They knew it just as conclusively as you know anything you have "proven" within your own system of thought.

No that's not true. They did not know the "earth is flat" as conclusively as I know I typed this message, or currently have two thumbs and two big toes.

And there are as many systems of "proof" on the planet as there are people, none of which are necessarily functional or accurate.

Ok. I don't think I implied otherwise.

I think you have some correct ideas about the word "faith", as shown in your quote above, but overall you are misusing a word which has a meaning which is commonly accepted in the usage of our language and does not include lack of doubt.

You have not demonstrated this. Certainly colloquial usage can vary, and the term can be used in any way one wishes... but I'm talking about what faith IS... why it's a concept, and what the concept means in terms of minds.

That is your own personal addition to the definition and is not accepted.

You can reject whatever you like, but I don't think you've demonstrated a misuse of terms. Actually I think I've demonstrated more clearly that the term is often misused, which I don't have a problem with really, but still...

Your first post is hereby refuted on the basis of misuse of terms.

I have summarily refuted your refutation. HA! Your turn.

Your one sentence saying,
'faith is not faith unless it is believed without "proof"
is a better demonstration of faith and proof being mutually exclusive, because it is at least within the realms of proper english language usage.

But you haven't really demonstrated your point. I say the term is commonly misused. My only point would be that this misuse, if not realized, degrades the true point of the term, though it provides some conversational utility.

If you doubt, it isn't faith. It's doubt.You can't have faith and doubt the same thing, but you can have faith in God and still doubt that the earth is flat. Faith and doubt can as such have co-existance in our minds, increasing and decreasing the level of trust of different parts of the same concept.



Done been said.

I would add though, that proof (output) requires a faith (input), with some synthesis in between them.You allways need some faith in the systems that gives the proof (even that system being your own eyes), this is not normally seen in the concept of faith, but still is a necessary part of faith and how we relate to things. Proven or not. As such we can also at times doubt what we are seeing with our eyes.





?

When "valid" criteria are set for "proof" and met, the hypothesis is "proven". Of course this ignores, because it's convenient for most people, that axioms are generally articles of faith (assumptions). For the purposes of proof, assumptions are taken as granted.Yes, but there should, if we would talk about 'real proof' be made no assumptions but it should more or less be evident in itself.

I realise that not many 'proofs' out there has this kind of integrity, but if we are taking 'proof' to the maximum extent it should have.


Proof is relevant to a defined scenario and does not necessarily extend beyond its scope.Then we mean the same thing.



One doesn't necessarily need faith to assess something to which one needs to respond. An assessment of probability and simplification of the problem can suffice.You wouldn't need faith in order to trust that simplification to a degree that you respond to it? I think so.

You can't have faith and doubt the same thing, but you can have faith in God and still doubt that the earth is flat.

Agreed.

Faith and doubt can as such have co-existance in our minds, increasing and decreasing the level of trust of different parts of the same concept.

Sure, didn't mean to imply otherwise. You just can't have both on the same topic.

At this point I must admit I forget exactly what brought this thread to my mind, but something did. I'm out of touch with it atm though.

I think it seems to me that people talk about "doubting their faith" and such, which is IMO, really not quite possible.

Damnit I can't remember the point.

You allways need some faith in the systems that gives the proof (even that system being your own eyes), this is not normally seen in the concept of faith, but still is a necessary part of faith and how we relate to things.

Yes, absolutely. I think there is a large lesson for many people in there. Faith and proof, while mutually exclusive, are intertwined. Faith supports proof, in all systems of comprehension.

Proven or not. As such we can also at times doubt what we are seeing with our eyes.

Indeed.

Yes, but there should, if we would talk about 'real proof' be made no assumptions but it should more or less be evident in itself.

IMO, such a thing as "real proof" is a theoretical maximum akin to "absolute zero" if you follow me. You can feel close to it, but you're bullshitting yourself if you think you're actually there. Sometimes however, bullshitting is quite fine and practical. I have proven to myself for instance, that I started this thread and have typed in it. Can I "really prove" it? No. I don't need to, and wouldn't bother. There is no practical benefit in the attempt as I see it. IMO, a good way to judge the practicality is basically: "what happens if I'm wrong"? I see no potential negative consequences to raise my concern. So I typed it, that's my belief... I can deal with it. :) I'll take it on faith in reason.

I realise that not many 'proofs' out there has this kind of integrity, but if we are taking 'proof' to the maximum extent it should have.

There is no proof with such integrity.

Then we mean the same thing.

Cool. I like it when that happens. Groovy keen.

You wouldn't need faith in order to trust that simplification to a degree that you respond to it? I think so.

Would I? Maybe, but I don't think it necessary is all. Depends on your stake in the outcome eh?

At this point I must admit I forget exactly what brought this thread to my mind, but something did. I'm out of touch with it atm though.

I think it seems to me that people talk about "doubting their faith" and such, which is IMO, really not quite possible.I think they mean that they are afraid that the faith will vanish if they doubt the surrounding things too much (thus they really are doubting faith itself).

Damnit I can't remember the point.Doesn't matter, you still have it in you. I guess when we can't remember something, then it doesn't have to be said (at this point of time, I might add).



IMO, such a thing as "real proof" is a theoretical maximum akin to "absolute zero" if you follow me. You can feel close to it, but you're bullshitting yourself if you think you're actually there. Sometimes however, bullshitting is quite fine and practical. I have proven to myself for instance, that I started this thread and have typed in it. Can I "really prove" it? No. I don't need to, and wouldn't bother. There is no practical benefit in the attempt as I see it. IMO, a good way to judge the practicality is basically: "what happens if I'm wrong"? I see no potential negative consequences to raise my concern. So I typed it, that's my belief... I can deal with it. :) I'll take it on faith in reason.We all have to do that, hehe (no more smileys allowed, I had to take away one of them, hehe).



There is no proof with such integrity.Subjective experiance often has this integrity. If you are aware, then you really can't doubt that, and if you do you should really think about changing your thoughts to the better :)

You could doubt that others are aware of themselves, or if animals are aware of themselves, etc. but the only 'real proof' is in their own subjective experiance and thus is untouchable and unexaminable for us.


Would I? Maybe, but I don't think it necessary is all. Depends on your stake in the outcome eh?Hmmm...I guess it could be so, yes, but I find it hard to remember anytime that I have acted that way. I think I have tried it (when I tried to prove I had free will to myself :), trying to be as spontanious as possible) but I don't think I succeded.

... are mutually exclusive.

Faith lacks doubt.

Proof is the spawn of doubt. It's "doubt's requirement".

Refute.

Proof is faith which can withstand a second party's rigorous examination of evidence.

I think I've realized that the premise of the thread is indeed correct, but about as much so as saying orange and blue and mutually exclusive. *sigh*