What is a proof?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2014, 02:59 PM
RE: What is a proof?
Looks like I can stop unpacking the good China, this guys an idiot. How disappointing. After so much time with WickedCrazy, ML, and hbl I was hoping for something with some intellectual honesty or interesting ideas.

What a shame.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 06:00 PM
RE: What is a proof?
(20-08-2014 02:59 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Looks like I can stop unpacking the good China, this guys an idiot. How disappointing. After so much time with WickedCrazy, ML, and hbl I was hoping for something with some intellectual honesty or interesting ideas.

What a shame.

Patience is a virtue. Smartass

In all seriousness, there is no intellectual honesty when you're dealing with someone who out of the gate defines proof to match his/her subjective view of it. It could have gone somewhere, but every single theist that comes into these types of forums, tends to take the road of...'my holy book is proof,' bla bla...

It's not proof. It is a book similar to Mother Goose. Unless there really was a guy named Jack Horner.
Wait...

Be true to yourself. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 06:04 PM
RE: What is a proof?
(20-08-2014 06:00 PM)Deidre32 Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 02:59 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Looks like I can stop unpacking the good China, this guys an idiot. How disappointing. After so much time with WickedCrazy, ML, and hbl I was hoping for something with some intellectual honesty or interesting ideas.

What a shame.

Patience is a virtue. Smartass

In all seriousness, there is no intellectual honesty when you're dealing with someone who out of the gate defines proof to match his/her subjective view of it. It could have gone somewhere, but every single theist that comes into these types of forums, tends to take the road of...'my holy book is proof,' bla bla...

It's not proof. It is a book similar to Mother Goose. Unless there really was a guy named Jack Horner.
Wait...

You betta respect my scriptures!

Goldilocks 1:14 - Thou shalt not sleep in someone else's bed.

Little Red Riding Hood 3:37 - Thou shalt not make fun of grandma's big mouth.

Little Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe 2:22 - Thou shalt not have more children then one can feed.

Hanzel and Gretel 5:17 - Thou shalt not eat an old witch's house.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
20-08-2014, 10:24 PM
What is a proof?
I think logic is acting accordingly to what one observes . Not only that but acting on what makes sense to avoid becoming insane. Logic is what triggers our brain. I also believe logic is what drives good and bad actions.

Damn this is hard it makes my head hurt lol
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 06:27 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2014 06:32 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: What is a proof?
Muslim,

You have asked what proof is, and the answer to that is fairly simple.

In mathematics we define logical systems in terms of a set of starting axioms. A proof within a logical system is based on the axioms of that system and shows using those axioms as a starting point that a particular proposition is true or is false within that logical system. A different set of axioms will result in a different set of true and false propositions. Propositions that are true or false in a given logical system may or may not correspond to true or false propositions in the real world depending on how consistent those axioms are with our reality. A logical system itself can be shown to be incoherent if a proof can be made that true is equal to false.

That is to say, mathematical proofs cannot be said to prove something in the real world unless we can also show that the axioms used match the real world - or how well they do so.

In order to apply mathematical thinking to the real world we need to use a scientific approach. That is,
1. Come up with ideas about the real world
2. Identify ideas that make testable predictions about the real world. Label ideas that make testable predictions "hypotheses", and discard other ideas as unfalsifiable - ie outside the scope of science to be able to verify.
3. Identify predictions between hypotheses that are mutually exclusive
4. Perform experiments to identify which (if any) of a given set of mutually exclusive predictions are inerrantly reliable. Discard of modify all hypotheses that fail to make inerrant predictions.
5. Identify the simplest hypotheses that have so far stood up to substantial experimentation that have the smallest burden of assumption built into them and have so far proven inerrant as our "scientific knowledge"
6. Continue to include our scientific knowledge in steps 3-5 to continually refine that knowledge and increase our ability to make unerringly accurate predictions about the real world in new contexts, with greater accuracy, and with greater precision over time.

So all you need to do is provide a clearly-defined hypothesis that makes specific unerringly accurate predictions despite many attempts to falsify its predictions that has smaller burden of assumptions than alternative hypotheses of the same predictive power. Whenever you do that you'll have my attention and serious consideration.

... or do you intend to propose a more reliable path to truth and knowledge than mathematical proof and scientific knowledge? If so, please do describe it.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
21-08-2014, 06:48 AM
RE: What is a proof?
All this logic is always trumped by the theist with "POOF=GOD DID IT"

Once you start with that bullshit naked assertion you can retrofit any crap you want to suit your own desires.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
21-08-2014, 08:23 AM
RE: What is a proof?
(20-08-2014 06:04 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 06:00 PM)Deidre32 Wrote:  Patience is a virtue. Smartass

In all seriousness, there is no intellectual honesty when you're dealing with someone who out of the gate defines proof to match his/her subjective view of it. It could have gone somewhere, but every single theist that comes into these types of forums, tends to take the road of...'my holy book is proof,' bla bla...

It's not proof. It is a book similar to Mother Goose. Unless there really was a guy named Jack Horner.
Wait...

You betta respect my scriptures!

Goldilocks 1:14 - Thou shalt not sleep in someone else's bed.

Little Red Riding Hood 3:37 - Thou shalt not make fun of grandma's big mouth.

Little Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe 2:22 - Thou shalt not have more children then one can feed.

Hanzel and Gretel 5:17 - Thou shalt not eat an old witch's house.

All hail Mother Goose! Bowing

Big Grin

Be true to yourself. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deidre32's post
22-08-2014, 03:59 AM
RE: What is a proof?
(20-08-2014 04:02 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Rules that humans have created. And let me show you an example of two mutually exclusive propositions being logically true at the same time. For example:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid588257

Two mutually exclusive claims:
  • Two mutually exclusive claims cannot be true simultaneously by definition otherwise they would not be mutually exclusive - True
  • Two mutually exclusive claims can be true simultaneously - Also True
Wrong!
Because the two propositions are not mutually exclusive
The word "claim" makes a lot of change
Any "real" mutually exclusive facts cannot happen at the same time


Quote:Contrived artificial example of two mutually exclusive claims that are simultaneously true:
  • The word "heterological" is heterological - True
  • The word "heterological" is autological. - Also True

Autological (also known as homological) = a word that describes itself (e.g., the word "short" is short, "noun" is a noun, "English" is English, "pentasyllabic" has five syllables, "word" is a word, "sesquipedalian" is a long word)

Heterological = a word that does not describe itself.
Also wrong, this is called a logical paradox, it is simply cannot exist in reality, just in words.


Quote:Conclusion: Logic is an artificial system that is a useful tool but is not a universal truth.
Wrong again.

Quote:I could create a computer simulation of some kind of flocking behaviour observed in the real world using just a few rules. Does this mean that this is how the flocking behaviour occurs in the real world? No. All it means is that the hypothesis is logically consistent. Whatever experiments carried out using an Artificial Life experiment must then be validated with real world observations if they are successful.
This is only shows that logic is not enough to describe the world.

Quote:For example, you could prove a program to be absolutely correct and it will still not work because a local thunderstorm or spike in the electricity supply corrupts the internal memory.
Again, the proof here is not complete because it didn't count for all parameters

Quote:You cannot use logic to prove a real world phenomenon, only to disprove a hypothesis. The scientific method is used to gather evidence for or against hypotheses.
Correct

Quote:When it comes to saying anything about the real world, logic is used for disproving. Not proving.
Yes, but this is only if just Logic is used
As I said the proof must start with some premises, usually observations (or science)

So to proof something by logic we will need some observations (facts)
then use logic to drive the conclusion
Note that the proof will only work for people who accept the premises
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 04:02 AM
RE: What is a proof?
(20-08-2014 05:28 AM)pablo Wrote:  The claims of gods actions (events) are many. Are these not testable? Can they not be falsified by science and logic?
By Logic yes
but Science! I doubt
because God created laws that govern the universe
Science can get clues but not solid, rough proof
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 04:05 AM
RE: What is a proof?
(20-08-2014 05:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 02:20 AM)Muslim Wrote:  I agree; except (Testable) as this applies only to sets
i.e. set of events or members where it applies
God is only one

That is called 'presupposition'. You have yet to demonstrate the existence of any god, let alone yours, but you assume its existence.

Utter logical failure, dude.
You have no clue about what are you writing
You are just angry

Here is some rules to think about this thread:
It is not about proving anything, so don't assume things
It is not even a debate about my view, it is just about what people think about proofs, logic and science
I sometimes write as I'm in an Atheist position, trying to just oppose me will make you look even more stupid
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: