'Proof'

Yazata

Yazata

Valued Senior Member
Several currently active threads seem to revolve around the concept of 'proof'.

We have dueling threads that purport to 'prove' God's impossibility in one case and God's necessary existence in the other. And there's yet another thread that proclaims that 'belief systems' are foolishness and anounces that intelligent people have 'proof systems' instead.

So I figured that maybe we need a thread about what the word 'proof' actually means. The quotes that follow come from the 'Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy', page 306. The comments that accompany the quotes are my own.

Informally, a procedure that brings conviction
Click to expand...

This is the weakest usage of the word 'proof', but it's the one that's most often used in everyday life. When somebody says 'prove it', they usually mean 'convince me'. What satisfies that demand typically isn't going to be a logical proof at all. In some cases it might be some sort of informal fallacy such as an emotional appeal or an appeal to self-interest.

I don't see any difficulty in both proving and disproving the existence of God if this is the standard of 'proof' that we are using. It's kind of trivial.

More formally, a deductively valid argument starting from true preises, that yields the conclusion.
Click to expand...

This more specifically logical definition, on the other hand, is awfully strong. It requires that our premises all be true and that we argue from those premises using only deductively valid reasoning.

Specifying what that latter actually is leads us to...

Most formally, in proof theory, a proof is sequence of fomulae of which each member is either an axiom or is derived from a set of preceding members by application of a rule of inference, and which terminates in the proposition proved. The final member of such a sequence is a theorem.
Click to expand...

And the intermediate steps are termed 'lemmas'. In this most technical sense, the demand that axioms be true has been dropped and all attention is being directed at the inferential relationships that exist among the lemmas and conclusion. It's entirely possible to create proofs that proceed from false axioms so as to explore their logical implications.

In Sciforums philosophy and religion discourse, the meaning of 'proof' seems to veer crazily back and forth between a purely intuitive (and often trivial) 'convince me' and a stronger desire for the kind of deductive rigor that yields up its conclusions with logical necessity and force.

Unfortunately, those latter kind of stronger logical proofs don't seem to be forthcoming in religion, whether pro or con. People have been trying to demonstrate the logical necessity of their religious conclusions for thousands of years, without any notable success. Their chains of reasoning either aren't deductively valid or they assume the truth of premises that are just as doubtful as the theorem that they seek to prove.
 
Yazata said:
Unfortunately, those latter kind of stronger logical proofs don't seem to be forthcoming in religion, whether pro or con. People have been trying to demonstrate the logical necessity of their religious conclusions for thousands of years, without any notable success. Their chains of reasoning either aren't deductively valid or they assume the truth of premises that are just as doubtful as the theorem that they seek to prove.
Click to expand...

As the definition of ‘faith’ goes, there is admittedly nothing known, which is why no proof is a sure thing to note, as many opponents indicate time and time again, yet another part of them as believers goes on to speak of God and even more layers of fabrication as outright truth and fact, rather than just a belief/wish. an ‘unethical’ result of strong belief taking one over, and so that is why I have undertaken to prove that God is impossible, in any form of Being whatsoever, whether a Deity type who doesn’t interfere or a type who does, a Being who I call a ‘Theity’, a shorthand word invented to ease discussion. There is also the matter of protecting one’s religious belief to point of conflict, war, and political policies.

Religious claims have and will continue to fall via science or philosophy. For the reachable, I may have some success, and for some I may but cast extreme doubt. Against strong believers I may have little or no success but I presume that they will eventually mostly die off, being replaced by new generations who have wider knowledge and/or are not indoctrinated. Cases such as extremist Islamic terrorists will go away much sooner.

As a sidelight, the nature of strong belief taking hold is addressed as well, but, again, some will ever remain immune to this reasoning, for it requires one to disbelieve one’s own thoughts.

This epic confrontation for me came out of a search for the why and how of existence, and it happened to rule out God, and so I have employed it for such.
 
I think it's encouraging that someone with such a strongly held belief, can "help" people overcome their own strongly held beliefs about something the first someone believes is wrong.

Well, it isn't really encouraging, it's kind of a big waste of time.
 
Yazata said:
Several currently active threads seem to revolve around the concept of 'proof'.


So I figured that maybe we need a thread about what the word 'proof' actually means. The quotes that follow come from the 'Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy', page 306. The comments that accompany the quotes are my own.
Click to expand...


Overall, and excellent observation Yazata.

All too often in here, the term "proof" is bandied around without so much as a second thought.

Frequently, what's of much greater concern and utility to any philosophical argument is Validity and Inductive support. I'll leave it up to the individual to research these terms if need be...


Yazata said:
Unfortunately, those latter kind of stronger logical proofs don't seem to be forthcoming in religion, whether pro or con. People have been trying to demonstrate the logical necessity of their religious conclusions for thousands of years, without any notable success. Their chains of reasoning either aren't deductively valid or they assume the truth of premises that are just as doubtful as the theorem that they seek to prove.
Click to expand...

Again, more often than not, these cases arise from an illegitimate application of the term "proof"...
 
You guys seem to be talking about "logical proof", and I understand where you are coming from; but this is by definition a science forum, I mean be careful when to say “logical proof” (philosophical argument) or “scientific proof” (something that can be interpreted as a fact from a scientific standpoint). ‘Cause if the regular frequenters of SF see that you are stating arguments based on “logical proof” as scientific facts, it is going to rain on you, and I don't mean get-an-umbrella kind of rain, I mean start-building-an-ark-and-get-ready-for-the-action kind of rain...
 
Wisdom_Seeker said:
You guys seem to be talking about "logical proof", and I understand where you are coming from; but this is by definition a science forum, I mean be careful when to say “logical proof” (philosophical argument) or “scientific proof” (something that can be interpreted as a fact from a scientific standpoint). ‘Cause if the regular frequenters of SF see that you are stating arguments based on “logical proof” as scientific facts, it is going to rain on you, and I don't mean get-an-umbrella kind of rain, I mean start-building-an-ark-and-get-ready-for-the-action kind of rain...
Click to expand...

Nice observation here.

I feel the desired meaning of proof (to be applied in any one context) is kind of inferred by the context it is used in. If one wishes to use it one specific way, one can, but one must frame one's usage. If one delves into 'Proof Theory' with one's statements, and one wishes to use the meaning where 'proof' is not so much based on facts, more on a philiosophical logical pursuit, then one must state one's usage. I think that under rigourous examination any theist would find it hard to reach a logical proof as well?

Even logical proof tends (in the majority of contexts) to stand on the shoulders of actual (scientific) proof (the latter being the most common and most used form).

Obviously if only one person at the party is discussing with one specific usage then the conversation doesn't necessarily lean towards their chosen usage. One must work within the context (use of the word) one finds oneself falling into. This is basic debate.

proof
   /pruf/ Show Spelled[proof] Show IPA
–noun
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?
3.
the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

Frame the context you wish for a thread/debate Yazata. And we will have to follow.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Er, did you miss this bit:


If it ain't true it ain't a fact.
Click to expand...

Given the various definitions:
“ Informally, a procedure that brings conviction. ”
This is correct but it seems as if it can be either a logical proof or scientific proof.

“ More formally, a deductively valid argument starting from true premises, that yields the conclusion. ”
This seems to be only about scientific proof. ‘Cause “true premises” are a gray area on philosophy, but it is not so gray scientifically speaking, it is actually pretty black.

But I'm guessing that since this is SF, when you say the word “proof” alone, it has to be in reference to scientific proof.
 
Wisdom_Seeker said:
Given the various definitions:
“ Informally, a procedure that brings conviction. ”
This is correct but it seems as if it can be either a logical proof or scientific proof.

“ More formally, a deductively valid argument starting from true premises, that yields the conclusion. ”
This seems to be only about scientific proof. ‘Cause “true premises” are a gray area on philosophy, but it is not so gray scientifically speaking, it is actually pretty black.

But I'm guessing that since this is SF, when you say the word “proof” alone, it has to be in reference to scientific proof.
Click to expand...

Proof is irrefutable evidence that leads to fact. Within a philosophical context this is applicable. Within a context which seeks reality-type-proof the context is usually inferred.

Effectively, it is the POV/context that shifts. Not the meaning of the word (though there are different applications which aren't the subject of this debate): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
 
Last edited:
Wisdom_Seeker said:
@universaldistress: I agree 99,9%.
Click to expand...
Why the drop of .1%?
Ok. The context can shift within the duration of the debate if parties are aware of the direction; the context is wilfully evolved for sound reasons (explained for laymen).

Though of course such debate will be (likely to be) discussing terminology, word usage etc. rather than focusing on the nittygritty substance?
 
There are many definitions and meanings of proof, well beyond the philosophically restricted definitions presented in the o.p.

Proof in a general sense is that which provides the average person with reason to take something as truth or fact.
 
I'd like to add nothing to the discussion here, by pointing out that nothing has to be something we at least expect to find.

So if that nails the "proof of nothing" to the wall, then I've added nothing, and the proof is complete. If nothing exists without being found, then you should expect not to find it.
Finding nothing further to add, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity, and, goodnight.
 
universaldistress said:
Why the drop of .1%?
Ok. The context can shift within the duration of the debate if parties are aware of the direction; the context is wilfully evolved for sound reasons (explained for laymen).

Though of course such debate will be (likely to be) discussing terminology, word usage etc. rather than focusing on the nittygritty substance?
Click to expand...

I've been thinking for an answer as to why I dropped the .1%, and I really can't find one; but before I have to think more and have an embolism, I find it inaccurate to agree 100% since I think that is impossible, mathematically speaking.
 
I would say that atheism rejects valid evidence as false.
A good scientist looks at all the evidence.
And a zealous scientist goes looking for evidence.
:roflmao:
 
Mind Over Matter said:
I would say that atheism rejects valid evidence as false.
A good scientist looks at all the evidence.
And a zealous scientist goes looking for evidence.
Click to expand...
The evidence for theism and atheism is the same.
It is the interpretation of that evidence that differs.
And that is where the question of rationality rears its head.
 
Sarkus said:
The evidence for theism and atheism is the same.
It is the interpretation of that evidence that differs.
And that is where the question of rationality rears its head.
Click to expand...

I am completely in agreement to that. People who wields more power try to take things with their beliefs, it can be theism or atheism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top