Proof, Evidence and Arguments

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

WinePusher

Proof, Evidence and Arguments

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

1. Anyone who's taken high school geometry should be acquainted with the concept of a proof. An example of a mathematical proof (from trigonometry) is as follows:

A) secx (cotx) = cscx

B) 1/cosx (cosx/sinx) = cscx by the reciprocal and quotient identity

C) 1/[strike]cosx[/strike] ([strike]cosx[/strike]/sinx) = cscx by the rule that cross products cancel

D) 1/sinx = cscx by the reciprocal identity

A mathematical statement, theorem or postulate can be proven step by step with 100% precision. In otherwords, we are absolutely certain that secx (cotx) = cscx. It doesn't seem that this type of certainty exists anywhere else other than in mathematics.

2) Evidence and Arguments are complementary and tend to go hand in hand. The thing to note is that evidence that is nonmathematical and arguments in general cannot prove anything for certain. When using evidence and arguments the only thing we can establish is the likelihood and probability of an event.

Questions for debate:

1) When discussing issues like the existence of God, or the truth of evolution or the accuracy of the Bible, is it fair to say that none of these issues can be proven with absolute certainty? Will there always be room for doubt when it comes to God's existence and the theory of evolution?

2) Is there any mathematical proof for the existence of God? Does the existence of mathematics itself prove that God exists?

User avatar
Cephus
Prodigy
Posts: 2991
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Redlands, CA
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Proof, Evidence and Arguments

Post #21

Post by Cephus »

wiploc wrote: You are in doubt about whether the world is flat?
Based on the evidence, no. That's still not absolute certainty. It's entirely possible, in the realm of extreme possibilities, that there is no planet and we're all brains in vats. That's just not what the evidence we currently have says and therefore there's no reason to take it seriously.

But you're not sure of that?
To any degree of absolute certainty, no. I can't even be absolutely certain that you exist.
Of course I'm hedging. I'm making the point that if we can't know a particular thing (that the earth isn't flat, say) then we can still know that it is probable (I guaran-darn-ty you that the earth probably isn't flat.) If we know that the earth probably isn't flat, then it is possible to know things.
To a certain degree, yes, we can know things. To be absolutely certain, no. Probability and certainty are two different things. Knowledge is only measured in degree and, with very few exceptions, can never approach absolute certainty. Knowledge is all about probability, how likely a thing is to be true based on the objective evidence that we have. Once it reaches a certain tipping point, where the objective evidence is overwhelming, we claim to know that it's true. We could be wrong. We could find evidence tomorrow that overturns everything. It's unlikely, based on what we know, but certainly possible.

This is why religious claims will never be counted as knowledge, they lack the merest objective evidence to support them.
Which proves the point I already made: The only logical way to argue that we don't know anything except mathematics is to adopt a skepticism so radical that we don't know even mathematics.
Mathematics is something that we invented, it's a complex system that came from humanity. It has no objective meaning outside of the human mind. You can't go to the store and buy a "mathematics", any more than you can go buy a "science". We have confidence in mathematics because we've built and defined the system in such a way that it fits to make observations and predictions possible.

It all comes back to how you want to define knowledge. If you mean absolute certainty, then no, we have no knowledge of anything, including mathematics, because absolute certainty is an unrealistic expectation across the board. If you want to define knowledge as the best objectively supported conclusion that we have at the moment, then sure, we can have knowledge, but some things like religion will never fit into that definition. You can't have a sliding scale, where some things have to meet a harsh criteria and others barely have to register. We only need one standard here.

Pick yours.
Want to hear more? Check out my blog!
Watch my YouTube channel!
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #22

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From the OP:
1. Anyone who's taken high school geometry should be acquainted with the concept of a proof. An example of a mathematical proof (from trigonometry) is as follows:
And some that ain't.
...
When using evidence and arguments the only thing we can establish is the likelihood and probability of an event.
What's the likelihood and probability of dead dudes coming back to life?

We need not rely solely on folks telling us someone did, when we can call up grammaw, and she don't answer.

Why don't she answer?

'Cause she's a right and good Christian who knows that when it is she's dead, well she stays that way.
1) When discussing issues like the existence of God, or the truth of evolution or the accuracy of the Bible, is it fair to say that none of these issues can be proven with absolute certainty?
Evolution can be proven with absolute certainty, 'cause we're not clones of our parents.

We're an amalgam of 'em both, confirming that we ain't just a copy of the one or the other. That right there is evolutin' like a good evoluter oughta.
Will there always be room for doubt when it comes to God's existence and the theory of evolution?
Considering how many folks reject evolutionary theory cause they think a god done poofed him up a planet full of humans some six thousand and some odd years ago, "room for doubt" seems an apt - if incomplete - descriptor.
2) Is there any mathematical proof for the existence of God?
I ain't seen it.
Does the existence of mathematics itself prove that God exists?
No more'n it proves Reagan loved him some jellybeans.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Proof, Evidence and Arguments

Post #23

Post by Zzyzx »

.
WinePusher wrote: In other words, the universe is based upon mathematics, so what exactly is mathematics based upon?

Mathematics is a human-developed language and a framework to understand and describe quantity, structure, space and change – all of which existed long before knowledge of mathematics developed and matured.

It should not be surprising that the language and framework can be applied to the universe. However, that in no way suggests that the existence of the universe depends upon knowledge of mathematics. Another way of saying the same thing is that mathematics is a means humans have developed in attempts to understand nature and the universe.

When we use mathematics to understand and describe the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, for instance, that is just our way of expressing the relationship that exists. There is no reason to conclude that the Earth – Sun relationship was developed on the basis of mathematics.
WinePusher wrote: I'm not sure I've heard any naturalistic explanation to this question. Perhaps you can provide one? What makes mathematics true and what accounts for the origins of mathematics?
Mathematics is based on observation and measurement of materials, motions and relationships in nature.
WinePusher wrote: These questions pertaining to mathematics seem to be just as baffling as many of the question pertaining to consciousness. On a naturalistic worldview the existence of both mathematics and consciousness seem un-explainable.
They may be "un-explainable" to those who prefer supernatural "explanations."
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Star
Sage
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:34 pm
Location: Vancouver BC

Post #24

Post by Star »

What non-believers should be asking for is evidence. It's true; science doesn't technically prove. Proof is for formal logic, math, and hard liquor. The closest thing to a proof in science is a fact. Not even laws are proven.

But, using evidence, science can provide likely explanations, and make predictions, with varying certainty, from untested hypotheses such as worm holes, to evolution and gravity. We can apply science to technology. Science taught us how to make electric motors and computers. It's demonstrable.

This is in sharp contrast to religion, which doesn't provide accurate predictions or usable information. Consideration of evolution, and the mountain of scientific evidence supporting it, doesn't compare to the superstitious claims of primitive peoples, who may or may not have herded goats. Science fulfills its burden of evidence.

It's just a philosophical technicality, WinePusher. Sure, science can't prove that the Earth exists. Science can't prove that animals are alive. Science can't prove that fire burns. Science can't prove that sharks bite. Science can't prove that you're not a figment of our imagination, and neither can you.

However, science can demonstrate. Can religion say the same?

WinePusher

Post #25

Post by WinePusher »

Star wrote: What non-believers should be asking for is evidence. It's true; science doesn't technically prove. Proof is for formal logic, math, and hard liquor. The closest thing to a proof in science is a fact. Not even laws are proven.

But, using evidence, science can provide likely explanations, and make predictions, with varying certainty, from untested hypotheses such as worm holes, to evolution and gravity. We can apply science to technology. Science taught us how to make electric motors and computers. It's demonstrable.

This is in sharp contrast to religion, which doesn't provide accurate predictions or usable information. Consideration of evolution, and the mountain of scientific evidence supporting it, doesn't compare to the superstitious claims of primitive peoples, who may or may not have herded goats. Science fulfills its burden of evidence.

It's just a philosophical technicality, WinePusher. Sure, science can't prove that the Earth exists. Science can't prove that animals are alive. Science can't prove that fire burns. Science can't prove that sharks bite. Science can't prove that you're not a figment of our imagination, and neither can you.

However, science can demonstrate. Can religion say the same?
Yes, I agree with pretty much everything you've written here. I have two points with this thread:

1. Absolute certainty is not available in any field other than mathematics/logic. Therefore, when debating issues like God's existence it is not appropriate to ask for proof, as you said it is more appropriate to ask for evidence. Additionally, when considering this evidence we must keep in mind that the evidence itself can only increase or decrease the probability of a claim being true. There will never come a time when a piece of evidence comes along and ends the debate completely in favor of the theistic/atheistic side.

2. Science and scientific theories are not infallible. The history of science is full of examples where scientific theories have been debunked and refuted, and it makes no sense to think that all of our current scientific knowledge cannot be subject to change, correction or refutation. For example, the religious devotion that many nontheists on this forum display towards evolution is very unscientific.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #26

Post by Zzyzx »

.
WinePusher wrote: 1. Absolute certainty is not available . . .
With this much I agree.
WinePusher wrote: Therefore, when debating issues like God's existence it is not appropriate to ask for proof, as you said it is more appropriate to ask for evidence.
I avoid debating the existence of "gods" but challenge claims by believers that they have special knowledge of what any of the "gods" is, does, wants, says, requires, etc. The only "evidence" presented consists of recitation of someone's beliefs (ancient or modern), and unverifiable testimonials or conjectures.
WinePusher wrote: Additionally, when considering this evidence we must keep in mind that the evidence itself can only increase or decrease the probability of a claim being true.
One should also consider the quality of evidence provided. "He says that she said that someone heard that a dead body came back to life" should not rank high in credibility.
WinePusher wrote: There will never come a time when a piece of evidence comes along and ends the debate completely in favor of the theistic/atheistic side.
Of course, an omnipotent / omniscient "god" could provide absolutely convincing evidence "But he doesn't want to" (according to some theists who claim knowledge of such things).
WinePusher wrote: 2. Science and scientific theories are not infallible. The history of science is full of examples where scientific theories have been debunked and refuted,
A more accurate description is that scientific theories are known to scientists as representing "the best we know at this time" and are expected to be revised, updated, replaced as new information becomes available.
WinePusher wrote: and it makes no sense to think that all of our current scientific knowledge cannot be subject to change, correction or refutation.
The general public often seems to think that current scientific knowledge is "cast in stone" as though they were religious claims and stories.

Notice that scientific ideas are updated by SCIENTISTS (not by theologians or religious naysayers – who typically know nothing about the field they attempt to criticize).

Religionists often attempt to maintain that updating is somehow a condemnation of scientific research when it is, instead, a great strength.

By contrast, religions attempt to hold onto ancient beliefs as though they were "cast in stone." Perhaps it is not surprising that religionists often attempt to impose the same limitations on science.
WinePusher wrote: For example, the religious devotion that many nontheists on this forum display towards evolution is very unscientific.
No "religious devotion" is required to recognize that evolution occurs every time a microorganism becomes antibiotic resistant or crops and livestock are improved / changed by selective breeding.

Religious devotion accounts for claims that evolution does not occur.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #27

Post by bluethread »

Zzyzx wrote:
WinePusher wrote: For example, the religious devotion that many nontheists on this forum display towards evolution is very unscientific.
No "religious devotion" is required to recognize that evolution occurs every time a microorganism becomes antibiotic resistant or crops and livestock are improved / changed by selective breeding.

Religious devotion accounts for claims that evolution does not occur.
So, atheists who do not accept evolution are exhibiting "religious devotion"? It sounds like someone is establishing an orthodoxy and using the phrase "religious devotion" as a scarlet letter. By the way it is adaptation that is recognized in the examples you presented. Evolution is the theory that such adaptations over long periods of time result in the creation of new and different species. Are there any examples of that being observed, or is the orthodoxy of evolution based on a religious devotion to a theory?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #28

Post by Zzyzx »

.
bluethread wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Religious devotion accounts for claims that evolution does not occur.
So, atheists who do not accept evolution are exhibiting "religious devotion"?
Pardon me. Insert "many or most" between for and claims
bluethread wrote: By the way it is adaptation that is recognized in the examples you presented.
Correct. The examples I presented represent adaptation – through genetic change over generations – the definition of evolution.
bluethread wrote: Evolution is the theory that such adaptations over long periods of time result in the creation of new and different species.
Correction: The definition of evolution (by geneticists, not theologians or creationists) is: "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation." http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution

Religionists often attempt to redefine words to fit their beliefs and often misconstrue scientific terms and concepts.
bluethread wrote: Are there any examples of that being observed,
Yes, evolution is observed in the examples I cited and many more
bluethread wrote: or is the orthodoxy of evolution based on a religious devotion to a theory?
Kindly define "orthodoxy of evolution."
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Cephus
Prodigy
Posts: 2991
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Redlands, CA
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Post #29

Post by Cephus »

[Replying to post 27 by bluethread]

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, atheism is the lack of belief in gods, full stop. There are plenty of atheists out there who believe in all kinds of irrational nonsense, but that has nothing to do with atheism and it is dishonest to claim otherwise.

And yes, there are tons of observed examples of evolution in the fossil record, plus lots of shorter-term examples we see in nature all the time.
Want to hear more? Check out my blog!
Watch my YouTube channel!
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

User avatar
Star
Sage
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:34 pm
Location: Vancouver BC

Post #30

Post by Star »

[Replying to post 25 by WinePusher]

The problem is you're using this technicality to justify hoisting religion to the same lofty heights as science. It doesn't matter that neither can technically prove. Science produces knowledge and has predictive capability. Religion doesn't.

Post Reply