Supporting Evidence vs Logical Proof

[ElCodeMonkey]

Many Christians claim to "know" that God/Christianity is real/correct rather than simply that they "believe" it. I am quite fine with people having beliefs about things without logic proving them. It is how we all operate out of necessity. But to claim knowledge and [often] to claim extreme damnation for being so "blind" to it, should require more than simple belief. There should be a logical progression of facts to prove it.

For example, hints can clue us into a cheating spouse: taking phone calls in another room, not sharing their phone, blank stares, eye rolling, distancing, no emotion, no hugging/kissing, etc, etc. When these all get added up, it tells a pretty good story that it is "likely" that your spouse is cheating on you. Still, however, one does not know for a fact and they should be cognizant of the fact that these things do not "prove" that their spouse is cheating. Proof would be pictures/video of sex, audio declarations, specific emails or texts, etc.

So, back to God, just seeing that the world is complex (as an example) is the supporting type of evidence. It proves nothing in and of itself. It's not an email from God. It simply supports an idea. It supports God just as much as an eye roll in and of itself supports the theory of a cheating spouse. By itself it means ultimately nothing since we can come up with another valid reason for it. Once you add enough of these ideas up, however, that it looks complex, that small differences throw it out of balance, that we have ancient documents and historical facts, and yadda yadda, it makes for a more "convincing" argument but still not a logical "proof".

With these things in mind, are there any "proofs" of God, or just supporting evidences? And if only supporting evidence, does the evidence necessitate your own God? Does it necessitate that the Bible is not half-corrupt? Could it be that such evidence makes many religions equally plausible? In short, just how sure can you really be? Do you have logical proof that leads undoubtedly to your conclusions or are there other potential ways to explain your evidences but you think one idea is simply more "likely" without actual logical proof? And if there is no logical proof, is damnation really all that fair for a loving God? Without proof, the only thing left is internal consistency with the beliefs. Sure, you can believe God made everything and that God is love, but is it logically consistent to believe God is also a self-centered war-mongering demon (for example)?

[JehovahsWitness]

... are there any "proofs" of God, or just supporting evidences?

Emphasis MINE

PROOF
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

EVIDENCE

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

According to the above definition, ie that "proof" is evidence and evidence is a type of information about a belief. then yes there is in my opinion much proof that supports the statement that there is indeed a God*

*By God I refer to an intelligent creator of the universe.





BURDEN OF PROOF

There is no rule that says anyone has to prove anything. If someone insists you must prove something, challenge them where is it a requirement on the forum that something needs to be proved.

JW


RELATED POSTS

Is there convinving evidence to support belief in a Creator?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#p897064

Viewpoints on the Origin of Life: Interviews and Experiences

Irene Hof Laurenceau: An Orthopedic Surgeon Explains Her Faith
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Origin ... cr_5_VIDEO

Petr Muzny: A Law Professor Explains His Faith
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Origin ... cr_3_VIDEO

Monica Richardson: A Physician Explains Her Faith
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Origin ... cr_1_VIDEO

Massimo Tistarelli: A Roboticist Explains His Faith
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Origin ... cr_2_VIDEO

Davey Loos: A Biochemist Explains His Faith
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Origin ... 06_3_VIDEO

Rajesh Kalaria: A Brain Researcher Explains His Faith
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Origin ... 04_3_VIDEO

Yaroslav Dovhanych: A Zoologist Explains His Faith
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Origin ... 04_2_VIDEO

Angel Fierro: A Pediatrician Explains His Faith
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Origin ... 08_1_VIDEO

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

Well that doesn't say much in and of itself. Sounds like you just don't like how I'm using the word "evidence." Not sure what other word you'd prefer, but my question still remains even if you don't like my word choice.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 3 by ElCodeMonkey]


I presume you were using the word as per the dictionary definition, feel free to state if that was not the case. In any case I have no problem with your use of the word "evidence".


Best Regards,




JW

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

I explained what I meant by "supporting evidence." I know of no other words to mean what I'm describing. An eye roll is not real evidence of a cheating spouse, for example. But with enough such things... Signs... Displays.... Whatever word you prefer, it could reasonably lead one to believe a spouse is cheating without proof. Got a better word for me?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

I explained what I meant by "supporting evidence."

I'm perfectly happy with your use of the expression "supporting evidence." I think you have not departed from the convention idea ( dictionary definition) of the term.


J W

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

The dictionary definition seems to indicate that it leads to knowledge/truth when I'm saying it only leads to plausibility that one might think is enough for belief but not necessarily knowing it's true.

[Goose]

Many Christians claim to "know" that God/Christianity is real/correct rather than simply that they "believe" it.

If Christians are using the term know in a colloquial sense meaning something like they have a supported belief then I think its excusable to say something like I know God exists. If they are using the term know in the strict literal sense of having actual knowledge of Gods existence then, of course, Christians do not have this knowledge anymore than an atheist has knowledge of Gods non-existence.

I am quite fine with people having beliefs about things without logic proving them.

Im fine with that too so long as it is not asserted the belief was arrived at through logical proof.

It is how we all operate out of necessity.

Its how some of us operate, not all of us.

But to claim knowledge and [often] to claim extreme damnation for being so "blind" to it, should require more than simple belief. There should be a logical progression of facts to prove it.

Can you provide a logical progression of facts to prove your belief, here, that claiming extreme damnation for being "blind", should require more than simple belief?

For example, hints can clue us into a cheating spouse: taking phone calls in another room, not sharing their phone, blank stares, eye rolling, distancing, no emotion, no hugging/kissing, etc, etc. When these all get added up, it tells a pretty good story that it is "likely" that your spouse is cheating on you. Still, however, one does not know for a fact and they should be cognizant of the fact that these things do not "prove" that their spouse is cheating. Proof would be pictures/video of sex, audio declarations, specific emails or texts, etc.

It seems to me you are saying observational proof is the only form of conclusive proof? How then can I be sure that your statement above regarding a logical progression of facts proving a belief is the case since you cannot provide observational proof (pictures/videos etc)?

So, back to God, just seeing that the world is complex (as an example) is the supporting type of evidence. It proves nothing in and of itself. It's not an email from God. It simply supports an idea. It supports God just as much as an eye roll in and of itself supports the theory of a cheating spouse. By itself it means ultimately nothing since we can come up with another valid reason for it. Once you add enough of these ideas up, however, that it looks complex, that small differences throw it out of balance, that we have ancient documents and historical facts, and yadda yadda, it makes for a more "convincing" argument but still not a logical "proof".

Thats fine. I wouldnt claim there is a logical proof (as you seem to be defining proof) for the existence of God. Nor do I think it necessary to have such a proof in order to rationally hold a belief in God.

With these things in mind, are there any "proofs" of God, or just supporting evidences?

Well, since it seems you are defining proof as something like a picture, video, email, etc, then no, there are no proofs for God that meet that kind of definition of proof.

And if only supporting evidence, does the evidence necessitate your own God?

That would depend upon which supporting argument we were looking at. Some are general theistic arguments (e.g. KCA). Some are more specific for the Christian God (e.g. the historical argument or the resurrection of Jesus).

Does it necessitate that the Bible is not half-corrupt?

This, I think, is irrelevant to whether God exists.

Could it be that such evidence makes many religions equally plausible?

Again, that would depend upon the argument. General theistic arguments would make most theistic religions more plausible.

In short, just how sure can you really be?

I dont really know how to answer this. Would you like this expressed as a percentage? Or as a statement like, Im quite sure, very sure, somewhat sure, more sure than not sure?

Do you have logical proof that leads undoubtedly to your conclusions or are there other potential ways to explain your evidences but you think one idea is simply more "likely" without actual logical proof?

The problem here is that there are always other ways to explain individual pieces of evidence. For example, in your cheating-wife analogy the evidence of an incriminating email can be explained by a misunderstanding or someone hacking the wifes email account or perhaps the wife thought she was sending the email to her husband.

What we should be doing is looking for the best overall explanation of the entire body of evidence. Once weve determined that, we provisionally hold that explanation to be true. Isnt that the most rational approach?

And if there is no logical proof, is damnation really all that fair for a loving God?

Without proof, the only thing left is internal consistency with the beliefs. Sure, you can believe God made everything and that God is love, but is it logically consistent to believe God is also a self-centered war-mongering demon (for example)?

But this argument, assuming it is valid, would only disprove the characteristic of an all-loving God. It wouldnt disprove God.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

The dictionary definition seems to indicate that it leads to knowledge/truth when I'm saying it only leads to plausibility that one might think is enough for belief but not necessarily knowing it's true.

Growing evidence leads to stronger conviction until it is felt proof has been established enough for action. But what value is proof if reality is as Romans 1 claims that we have all clearly seen the proof of YHWH's divinity and power already but have repressed that truth from our conscious minds?

[ElCodeMonkey]

If Christians are using the term know in a colloquial sense meaning something like they have a supported belief then I think its excusable to say something like I know God exists.

I'm not familiar with such a colloquial device of saying I know something without actually knowing it. If someone says "I know God exists," this says to me they have absolute knowledge about it and there is no way they could be wrong within any reasonable bounds. Like, I "know" I'm wearing a shirt right now (though I could be hallucinating) and I "know" you are human. Maybe you're not human, but in so far as I have experienced life, it is such a minuscule chance that you're not, that I am perfectly fine with saying you are as knowledge. Can such knowledge of one's own faith (e.g. Christianity) really have that kind of certainty? And if not, is "know" really used in such a sense, or do they really truly believe they have certainty?

It is how we all operate out of necessity.

Its how some of us operate, not all of us.

It is absolutely how we all operate. It's impossible to logically prove absolutely everything we believe. Some do it for more things than others, but we all must do it. The body of evidence supports that I am human, which I'm sure you believe, and yet you cannot prove it as you sit there. It can be proven, yes, but you already "know" I'm human without the proof. And that is fine.

Can you provide a logical progression of facts to prove your belief, here, that claiming extreme damnation for being "blind", should require more than simple belief?

Depends on what you're willing to take as axioms. If God is Love and Love is Fair and Fairness wouldn't punish someone who had no knowledge, then that proves my point. A shorter version would be that Love simply wouldn't eternally damn someone, but then it wouldn't even matter how solid the evidence is for God. But this a bit of a derailment of the main concept.

It seems to me you are saying observational proof is the only form of conclusive proof?

Absolutely not. Logical proofs are the only real proof with 100% certainty. Everything else must move around a gradient of likelihood. At 99.9999999999% chance of likelihood, it's worth simply saying we "know", but of course there is always a chance we're in a Simulation and nothing as we know it is real. Logic, however, must remain.

Thats fine. I wouldnt claim there is a logical proof (as you seem to be defining proof) for the existence of God. Nor do I think it necessary to have such a proof in order to rationally hold a belief in God.

I agree on both accounts. I believe the concept of a God is plausible without being deranged, though I do believe the common Christian God is impossible at worst and extremely unlikely (less than 0.01% chance) at best.

Well, since it seems you are defining proof as something like a picture, video, email, etc, then no, there are no proofs for God that meet that kind of definition of proof.

Logic can come into play as well. If you can take facts that we know and logically deduce the "need" for a God, then that could derive some real proof. As it is, I assume you and I both agree that there is simply "a bunch of stuff" that make a God "likely" (in your case) or merely "plausible" (in my case). But further, why the Modern Christian Bible God? Most arguments for God that I've seen do not point out the Bible in particular.

Some are more specific for the Christian God (e.g. the historical argument or the resurrection of Jesus).

Given the body of knowledge and evidence that we have showing that people don't tend to rise from the dead, apart from one book claiming it happened to Jesus (I'm sure there are other books claiming it occurred to others), what would make us believe the resurrection is true? Not simply a "proof", but what kind of supporting evidence even exists to say "This is potentially likely" or even "this is plausible"?

Does it necessitate that the Bible is not half-corrupt?

This, I think, is irrelevant to whether God exists.

My point being that, without explicit proof, you need a body of evidence that somehow indicates the Bible is however perfect you may deem it is. Why believe it is 100% God's Infallible word? Or 99.99% with minor typos or whatever? Why not believe it is 50% God's word? Is there a proof or a large body of evidence to support the appropriate percentage?

In short, just how sure can you really be?

I dont really know how to answer this. Would you like this expressed as a percentage? Or as a statement like, Im quite sure, very sure, somewhat sure, more sure than not sure?

Percentages would be great, sure. I simply hear a lot of Christians saying they "know" God is real and that Christianity is the way, which makes me assume they believe with 99.9999 to 100 percent certainty.

The problem here is that there are always other ways to explain individual pieces of evidence. For example, in your cheating-wife analogy the evidence of an incriminating email can be explained by a misunderstanding or someone hacking the wifes email account or perhaps the wife thought she was sending the email to her husband.

There is quite often a way to perceive something as something else as in your examples, but the already unlikely likelihood of them being true shrinks exponentially the more items there are that require such oddities. For example, sure, maybe she accidentally typed the wrong address. Not likely, but plausible. But then did she also accidentally say Steve instead of Fred in the greeting? Did she also accidentally refer to Olive Garden last night instead of McDonald's last Friday? She just happened to get the wrong email, accidentally typed the wrong name, and got her restaurants and days confused. It becomes more and more unlikely as we get more and more strong evidence. Even still, none of this is "absolute proof" despite the near certainty. If logic comes into play, however, we can know things such as an inability to be in two places simultaneously. We can catch her in lies saying she never went to Olive Garden yet have a picture of her there. Such things "prove" she's not telling the truth for whatever reason. I don't expect we'll ever get such "proof" for God, so why are so many Christians so adamant about their knowledge? God will never be proven and no one argument will ever be enough by itself. It can simply add to logical consistency and/or plausibility.

What we should be doing is looking for the best overall explanation of the entire body of evidence. Once weve determined that, we provisionally hold that explanation to be true. Isnt that the most rational approach?

Sure, for the most part. I would add that we should behave as if it is true, but we should be on the lookout (for many things) to prove ourselves wrong and thus alter our belief about it as necessary. We should also be more honest to say "this seems most likely to me" rather than saying "it is true." And being most likely, this is why we behave the way we behave.

But this argument, assuming it is valid, would only disprove the characteristic of an all-loving God. It wouldnt disprove God.

Right. I think the Christian God can be disproven by simple logic similar to my example, but the existence of any God cannot ever be disproven any more than the simulation theory can be disproven.