ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th March 2019, 02:04 AM   #921
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,702
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Indeed, as I said above the argument is conclusive with regard to religions for which divinity is creator, omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good. I think that encompasses the major monotheistic religions of today. As I said above, if someone wants to defend a god without these characteristics, we will have to look elsewhere.

No. And others here besides me have told you this several times now - what Russell says in your quote is not as you just claimed "conclusive" for your claim that he "shows God does not exist". That quote is not "conclusive" to “show that God does not exist”, it's not remotely anything of the sort ...

... you seem to have no idea what a "proof" is or what "evidence" is, and you have absolutely no shame in trying to deliberately and repeatedly misrepresent everything that others say. Nowhere does Russell say that his words "conclusively” ... “show that God does not exist".

All that his words show is that he does not find those particular Christian claims of God convincing for the reasons he gives (mostly reasons of God's apparent inability or unwillingness to intervene and save innocent people from tragedy).

Almost everyone who does not believe in God has pointed out that if God is claimed to be "all loving" and "omnipotent" then it seems strange that he allows such tragedy and inhumanity to keep occurring to defenceless innocent children (and other's).

But that's not remotely “conclusive” to “show that God does not exist”.

It's not even really philosophical either (unless as we all argued over before - it's now being claimed here that all human conscious thought is academic philosophy). It's just Russell (or anyone else, since he's just saying what millions of others have said) saying that God does not seem very loving or very potent/powerful if he cannot or will not save people in such situations. It's an opinion from Russell, and nothing more.

And by the way, since you raised this issue in order to claim that philosophy “showed” what science could not – what science has shown through Evolution (for example) is that the Christian belief that God created Man by a miracle, is untrue to the extent of being as close to certainty or “proof” as we are ever likely to get. That really is extremely convincing evidence against the entire basis of how & why any belief in a God was invented in the first place 3000 years ago. But you apparently find some mere waffling from Russell to be more convincing such that it “conclusively” .. “shows that God does not exist” …

… if you have ever taken a philosophy class in “Logic” then you should ask for your money back!

Last edited by IanS; 15th March 2019 at 02:06 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 03:59 AM   #922
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'm pretty sure though that most scientists are aware that absence of evidence is generally not evidence of absence. (Unless you can exhaustively eliminate the necessary implications of something.) I.e., they wouldn't confuse Russel's saying that there's no evidence of a very specific God, with having proof there's no god.
Unlike what other arguments against the existence of God do, the argument of evil is a proof (in the sense that I am using the word) that God (the god of the usual monotheistic religions) does not exist because his mere concept is contradictory. The only way to counter it is to move to the field of irrationality. This is an implicit recognition that rational proofs are against the existence of God. That's what Dostoyevsky recognizes.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 04:13 AM   #923
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No. And others here besides me have told you this several times now - what Russell says in your quote is not as you just claimed "conclusive" for your claim that he "shows God does not exist". That quote is not "conclusive" to “show that God does not exist”, it's not remotely anything of the sort ...

... you seem to have no idea what a "proof" is or what "evidence" is, and you have absolutely no shame in trying to deliberately and repeatedly misrepresent everything that others say. Nowhere does Russell say that his words "conclusively” ... “show that God does not exist".

All that his words show is that he does not find those particular Christian claims of God convincing for the reasons he gives (mostly reasons of God's apparent inability or unwillingness to intervene and save innocent people from tragedy).

Almost everyone who does not believe in God has pointed out that if God is claimed to be "all loving" and "omnipotent" then it seems strange that he allows such tragedy and inhumanity to keep occurring to defenceless innocent children (and other's).

But that's not remotely “conclusive” to “show that God does not exist”.

It's not even really philosophical either (unless as we all argued over before - it's now being claimed here that all human conscious thought is academic philosophy). It's just Russell (or anyone else, since he's just saying what millions of others have said) saying that God does not seem very loving or very potent/powerful if he cannot or will not save people in such situations. It's an opinion from Russell, and nothing more.

And by the way, since you raised this issue in order to claim that philosophy “showed” what science could not – what science has shown through Evolution (for example) is that the Christian belief that God created Man by a miracle, is untrue to the extent of being as close to certainty or “proof” as we are ever likely to get. That really is extremely convincing evidence against the entire basis of how & why any belief in a God was invented in the first place 3000 years ago. But you apparently find some mere waffling from Russell to be more convincing such that it “conclusively” .. “shows that God does not exist” …

… if you have ever taken a philosophy class in “Logic” then you should ask for your money back!
You distribute certificates of conviction arbitrarily. Because you do not want to recognize that philosophy is a powerful weapon against the existence of God.

You have not explained how it is possible for a God to be good and create evil. Yours is exactly a subjective and unfounded opinion.
Nor have you explained how it is possible that competent scientists may not believe in the biblical account of Creation and still consider themselves Christians. I will explain it to you: it is enough to defend that God created the laws that govern nature or that God breathed the spirit into the body that evolution had produced. So the evidence of your scientific argument disappears.

So what you call convincing, as if necessary, is not. It's a hint, at best. Whereas proof that there is a contradiction is a proof in the strong sense of the word. (By the way, have you read the scientific articles that I quote. They use "proof" in the same way that "evidence". You don't have noticed this yet?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 04:40 AM   #924
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,702
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
See this: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/189/4205/806. Or this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2399465...n_tab_contents

One example between many others that many scientists use "proof" and "evidence" a synonims.

Talking to you really is just like talking to a creationist!

You employ the same tactics as fundamentalist creationists.

What they do when faced with various scientific explanations that contradict their religious claims, is that they scour the internet trying to find some article, book, or "paper" that disagrees with whatever their scientific opponents have said. You are doing the exact same thing ...

... if you look at the millions of scientific papers that are published every year, then you will undoubtedly find thousands of examples where the authors have used words like "fact", "certain" and "proof". Those papers/articles/books are rarely in core physics, but they do occur sometimes in less mathematically precise areas of science including biology. However ...

... what those authors are doing is simply using slightly less than strictly accurate language for the sake of simplictity and brevity when they are describing something which is not likely to be disputed as a direct observation or actual data that is not likely to be contested by anyone. For example - in Darwins case he was (iirc) recording differences in the shape and the solidity of the beaks in certain groups of finches ... those differences are accepted by everyone as a "fact", ie the differences are just acepted as "proved", simply because everyone can see the differences for themselves ... as recorded or observed data it's not something that anyone is likely to dispute (except of course philosophers and presupositionalist creationists who object on the basis of Solipsism saying that reality itself is not “proven”).

But even more than that, you will also find genuine scientific papers where some authors frequently describe things as "facts" or "proven", even when talking about previously established theories such as QM or Relativity. Eg, they may say it's "a fact" that "time reversal in Einsteins first paper shows X ..." or they may say something like "we know from the Standard Model that the Neutron is made up from three quarks". Those are statements presenting things as proven literal “fact”. But they are only written that way (a) for brevity (to avoid writing pages of extra stuff to explain every single sentence), and (b) because almost nobody within science contests those things. But if you ask those physicists if those things are all true as a matter absolutely proven fact, then they will almost all agree that of course science should not claim to have literally proved actual certainties in that sense.

OK, so turning now to your two links - what you have produced there is firstly a paper which has the word “Proof” in it's title for the claim of observing “gene exchange”. However, (1) that link only gives the title and the short abstract, it does not produce the paper itself so we can't check what the author is claiming as a “proof”, then (2) the abstract that actually describes what the authors observed, very conspicuously does not make any claim of proof at all! Even so, the journals editors really should not allow a title like that to pass, though as I say, it does happen more in less mathematically rigorous fields of science such as biology (compared to mathematical theoretical physics for example) … but, to repeat, amongst the millions of papers published each year you can find examples like that where the reported observations or data are really not disputed by anyone (eg Darwins finches ... where the observed differences are taken to be factual).

Your second link is to what appears to be merely a book! (if its a journal then it appears to be obscure in the extreme lol). But even for that, the title of the “paper” (if it's not in a real mainstream journal then it's not a “paper”) merely asks a question about “proof and conjecture”, and I'm not going spend time reading their whole paper to see what they say about proof vs conjecture.

However, apart from all of that – what you were actually claiming was that in science Proof is regarded to be the same as Evidence, and that is utterly and completely untrue. Proof and evidence are two very different things.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 05:36 AM   #925
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,405
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Unlike what other arguments against the existence of God do, the argument of evil is a proof (in the sense that I am using the word) that God (the god of the usual monotheistic religions) does not exist because his mere concept is contradictory. The only way to counter it is to move to the field of irrationality. This is an implicit recognition that rational proofs are against the existence of God. That's what Dostoyevsky recognizes.
No, not really. What you have there is really just the theodicy problem, and it's only really a problem if you want to have omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence at the same time. Allow any of the three to stop well short of infinite, and the existence of A god stops being a problem at all. E.g., the same theodicy problem doesn't do anything against a god who is a bit of a dick.

Which, at the risk of repeating myself, not only is no problem for polytheists, but isn't even a problem for the Jews.

But it doesn't really work even against the Xian god. An ad absurdum, which is really what the problem of evil is doing, that is based on several premises only says that at least ONE of the premises is false. Here we have at least 4 premises: the existence of God, omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Only ONE of them must be false. And nothing says it has to be the first one.

Basically an equally good solution is simply that the Xians are wrong about the attributes they ascribe to god.

Again, a god who's a bit of a dick is actually NOT prevented by debunking the Xian theodicy.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 15th March 2019 at 05:46 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 05:44 AM   #926
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,405
Also, frankly, I don't know why you need to drag Dostoevsky into everything by now. The problem of evil is ANCIENT. As in, it goes back all the way to AT LEAST middle-kingdom Egypt, more than 3000 years before Dostoevsky was even born. Even as Xians go, Irenaeus deals with it already in the 2nd century CE. The whole rationalization even gets a name, namely "theodicy", in 1710 thanks to Leibniz. Again, long before Dostoevsky was even born.

Yes, there is a problem named after Dostoevsky, but this is not it. In fact, this has nothing to do with it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 06:53 AM   #927
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,702
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You distribute certificates of conviction arbitrarily. Because you do not want to recognize that philosophy is a powerful weapon against the existence of God.

You have not explained how it is possible for a God to be good and create evil. Yours is exactly a subjective and unfounded opinion.
Nor have you explained how it is possible that competent scientists may not believe in the biblical account of Creation and still consider themselves Christians. I will explain it to you: it is enough to defend that God created the laws that govern nature or that God breathed the spirit into the body that evolution had produced. So the evidence of your scientific argument disappears.

So what you call convincing, as if necessary, is not. It's a hint, at best. Whereas proof that there is a contradiction is a proof in the strong sense of the word. (By the way, have you read the scientific articles that I quote. They use "proof" in the same way that "evidence". You don't have noticed this yet?


I don't have to explain anything to you. You are not in charge of the world (much as you might think you are).

But as it happens I have explained to you (in considerable detail) how and why the discoveries from science show that a supernatural God probably does not exist.

The entirety of what we have discovered from science really shows that. All the things that were originally presented as acts of God and evidence of God, such as thunder & lightening, earthquakes, the stars in the sky, the origin of not only human life but of all known life that ever lived on the Earth, floods, famine & disease, even life and death itself … all those things were originally claimed as the evidence for the certainty of God … and that was believed because at the time, when God was first dreamed up by ancient people 3000 years ago, nobody had a more convincing explanation for any of those things …

… but the difference now is that science has produced extremely convincing explanations for all those things, and those explanations have no God making any contribution at all. So the very reason for ever believing in a God in the first place, has gone. And it's gone due to science … not due to any axioms or “proofs” from the semantics of academic philosophy.

You cannot bring things, such as God's, into actual existence or take them out of existence, merely by constructing arguments in words to show that certain religious claims are flawed in the words they have used. That only shows that the religious person has used the wrong words!

If the claim is that a God is real, then you have to show why it's reality is unlikely. And you can only do that by showing far more likely explanations for all the things that are claimed as evidence of the God.

If you find Russell's arguments convincing, then that's a matter for you. And lots of people do find those sort of reasons convincing against the existence of God. But they are all arguments against what Christians have claimed as the characteristics of God (omnipotent, omni-benevolent etc.). All that does is show that in the selected instances (a particular disease, a particular flood etc.) the claimed God did not save people in the way Christians might have expected him to. That does not show he does not exist.

Science is showing something different from that about the claimed God. It shows that specific claims are specifically wrong, eg. Evolution. And that's a really fundamental claim which was (iirc) originally given as the entire reason to believe that a God existed at all, namely that God was said to be the only possible explanation for why humans existed and why the Earth the Stars and the entire universe existed … and the reason for thinking that, was that 3000 years ago nobody had a better explanation! …

… but now we do have a better explanation, in fact explanations which are so much better that no educated person in their right mind should still think that religious position is defendable any longer. The scientific answers are completely overwhelming.

But those are all answers from science, not from philosophy making word-arguments to say that others (theists) have used the wrong language or that parts of their spoken or written sentences are contradictory.

Again as a comparison with fundamentalist theists – what you seem to be doing is (like those theists) treating the discoveries and explanations from science (in fact the astonishing success of science, both in the vast amount of things it has discovered, and the quite mind-boggling accuracy and depth of all that vast mass of things it has explained), as if science were no better and no more believable than any other academic subject or even anyone's personal opinion of what is likley to be true about the nature the world around us ... like those theists you are comparing science to philosophy or to other “ways of knowing” as if it was all equally reliable, credible and actually accurate in explaining real events and real process & objects that exist in the universe around us …

… fundamentalist Christians and creationists do exactly that same thing – they argue as if all beliefs were equally likely and equally valid … they argue that science is no more believable with no more credibility than their own religious beliefs about divine creation, Jesus rising from the dead, God revealing himself to believers (ie “personal revelation” as their proof of God), arguing that thousands of miracles have been verified as certainties etc.

Last edited by IanS; 15th March 2019 at 06:56 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 07:05 AM   #928
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,108
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
That's a bad excuse for a very dishonorable retreat.
I don't need an excuse, and I don't need to retreat. I'm sorry if you feel dishonored, but I gave you the opportunity to explain your contradiction.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 07:59 AM   #929
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
(...)

You employ the same tactics as fundamentalist creationists.

What they do when faced with various scientific explanations that contradict their religious claims, is that they scour the internet trying to find some article, book, or "paper" that disagrees with whatever their scientific opponents have said. You are doing the exact same thing ...

... if you look at the millions of scientific papers that are published every year, then you will undoubtedly find thousands of examples where the authors have used words like "fact", "certain" and "proof". Those papers/articles/books are rarely in core physics, but they do occur sometimes in less mathematically precise areas of science including biology. However ...

... what those authors are doing is simply using slightly less than strictly accurate language for the sake of simplictity and brevity when they are describing something which is not likely to be disputed as a direct observation or actual data that is not likely to be contested by anyone.(...)



OK, so turning now to your two links - what you have produced there is firstly a paper which has the word “Proof” in it's title for the claim of observing “gene exchange”. However, (1) that link only gives the title and the short abstract, it does not produce the paper itself so we can't check what the author is claiming as a “proof”, then (2) the abstract that actually describes what the authors observed, very conspicuously does not make any claim of proof at all

Your second link is to what appears to be merely a book! (if its a journal then it appears to be obscure in the extreme lol). But even for that, the title of the “paper” (if it's not in a real mainstream journal then it's not a “paper”) merely asks a question about “proof and conjecture”, and I'm not going spend time reading their whole paper to see what they say about proof vs conjecture.

However, apart from all of that – what you were actually claiming was that in science Proof is regarded to be the same as Evidence, and that is utterly and completely untrue. Proof and evidence are two very different things.
To show to you that scientists can use proof and evidence as synonyms with various examples is a "creationist" method! Ridiculous. It is give you a proof that when you claimed that proof is ever different to evidence you were absolutely wrong. With facts.

Not only I gave you examples, but I have also given you definitions from scientific journals and Wikipedia in which they say you can use either evidence or proof without mistake. Academic definitions are not valid either? Are they a creationist cheat? Creacionism invades the Earth!

Whether it is in the titles or in the body of the article matters little. The fact is that you recognize that both terms are used as synonyms. (On the other hand you will realize that to prove is the infinitive that corresponds to the noun proof. That is: action and result).

You have no argument to say that it is for short. No argument to know if there are millions or thousands who use "proof" as similar to "evidence". These are statements that you make up. As a creacionsit uses to do.

What has been refuted with my examples is your claim that only "prove" is used to mention the proven facts that support a theory. That's just proving or providing evidence of some statement. Give the cases that support it.

Finally, the examples I've given you I've found in less than half an hour with a single search engine for academic articles. I found many others. I'm going to give you the list - excuse me for just giving you the list; I know you're not going to read them all. Nor can you.

First of all a new definition:

Proof:
noun*\ ˈprüf \
evidence of truth or correctness < gave*proof*of their statement >
the process of or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement (as a mathematical theorem) especially by derivation from other statements by accepted rules of reasoning
a test to find out or show the essential facts or truth < put the theory to the*proof*>
Encyclopedia Britannica Academica.

Then, the list:

-"Drosophila as a Developmental Paradigm of Regressive Brain Evolution: Proof of Principle in the Visual System"; Friedrich, Markus.Brain, Behavior and Evolution; Basel*Tomo*78,*N.º*3,**(Oct 2011): 199-215.

"Theory of personal world outlook*evolution: Categories, provisions,*proofs"; by *Kulikovskaya, Irina E; Middle East Journal of Scientific Research
Article Navigation

"Statistical distribution of amino acid sequences: a proof of Darwinian evolution"; Krystian Eitner*Uwe Koch*Tomasz Gawęda*Jędrzej Marciniak*
Bioinformatics, Volume 26, Issue 23, 1 December 2010, Pages 2933–2935


"Eclipse proof of relativity";
Physics Today, May 2015

"Relativity*for the layman: a simplified account of the history, theory, and proofs of relativity"; Coleman, James A; Pelikan book, 1961

"Interpretation of Mössbauer experiment in a rotating system: A new proof for general* elativity"; *Corda, Christian; Annals of Physics, 04/2015, Volumen 355

Etc, etc., etc.


I am definitely tired of providing you with evidence that the use of proof is not limited to the formal sciences, but can be employed more broadly to encompass any process that leads to the truth of a proposition (whether mathematical or not).

I consider our discussion settled and affirm that Russell's argument is a solid proof of the non-existence of the God of current monotheisms.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 08:04 AM   #930
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
No, not really. What you have there is really just the theodicy problem, and it's only really a problem if you want to have omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence at the same time. Allow any of the three to stop well short of infinite, and the existence of A god stops being a problem at all. E.g., the same theodicy problem doesn't do anything against a god who is a bit of a dick.

Which, at the risk of repeating myself, not only is no problem for polytheists, but isn't even a problem for the Jews.

But it doesn't really work even against the Xian god .
I'm saying from the beginning that the argument doesn't refer to any kind of god. It serves for common beliefs in a god with such characteristics.
I would like to know how the Jews and the Xian evade the problem of evil. Can you explain that?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 08:05 AM   #931
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Also, frankly, I don't know why you need to drag Dostoevsky into everything by now. The problem of evil is ANCIENT. As in, it goes back all the way to AT LEAST middle-kingdom Egypt, more than 3000 years before Dostoevsky was even born. Even as Xians go, Irenaeus deals with it already in the 2nd century CE. The whole rationalization even gets a name, namely "theodicy", in 1710 thanks to Leibniz. Again, long before Dostoevsky was even born.

Yes, there is a problem named after Dostoevsky, but this is not it. In fact, this has nothing to do with it.
Because it's the example I used at the beginning of this thread.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 08:14 AM   #932
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I don't have to explain anything to you. You are not in charge of the world (much as you might think you are).

But as it happens I have explained to you (in considerable detail) how and why the discoveries from science show that a supernatural God probably does not exist.

The entirety of what we have discovered from science really shows that. All the things that were originally presented as acts of God and evidence of God, such as thunder & lightening, earthquakes, the stars in the sky, the origin of not only human life but of all known life that ever lived on the Earth, floods, famine & disease, even life and death itself … all those things were originally claimed as the evidence for the certainty of God … and that was believed because at the time, when God was first dreamed up by ancient people 3000 years ago, nobody had a more convincing explanation for any of those things …

… but the difference now is that science has produced extremely convincing explanations for all those things, and those explanations have no God making any contribution at all. So the very reason for ever believing in a God in the first place, has gone. And it's gone due to science … not due to any axioms or “proofs” from the semantics of academic philosophy.

You cannot bring things, such as God's, into actual existence or take them out of existence, merely by constructing arguments in words to show that certain religious claims are flawed in the words they have used. That only shows that the religious person has used the wrong words!

If the claim is that a God is real, then you have to show why it's reality is unlikely. And you can only do that by showing far more likely explanations for all the things that are claimed as evidence of the God.

If you find Russell's arguments convincing, then that's a matter for you. And lots of people do find those sort of reasons convincing against the existence of God. But they are all arguments against what Christians have claimed as the characteristics of God (omnipotent, omni-benevolent etc.). All that does is show that in the selected instances (a particular disease, a particular flood etc.) the claimed God did not save people in the way Christians might have expected him to. That does not show he does not exist.

Science is showing something different from that about the claimed God. It shows that specific claims are specifically wrong, eg. Evolution. And that's a really fundamental claim which was (iirc) originally given as the entire reason to believe that a God existed at all, namely that God was said to be the only possible explanation for why humans existed and why the Earth the Stars and the entire universe existed … and the reason for thinking that, was that 3000 years ago nobody had a better explanation! …

… but now we do have a better explanation, in fact explanations which are so much better that no educated person in their right mind should still think that religious position is defendable any longer. The scientific answers are completely overwhelming.

But those are all answers from science, not from philosophy making word-arguments to say that others (theists) have used the wrong language or that parts of their spoken or written sentences are contradictory.

Again as a comparison with fundamentalist theists – what you seem to be doing is (like those theists) treating the discoveries and explanations from science (in fact the astonishing success of science, both in the vast amount of things it has discovered, and the quite mind-boggling accuracy and depth of all that vast mass of things it has explained), as if science were no better and no more believable than any other academic subject or even anyone's personal opinion of what is likley to be true about the nature the world around us ... like those theists you are comparing science to philosophy or to other “ways of knowing” as if it was all equally reliable, credible and actually accurate in explaining real events and real process & objects that exist in the universe around us …

… fundamentalist Christians and creationists do exactly that same thing – they argue as if all beliefs were equally likely and equally valid … they argue that science is no more believable with no more credibility than their own religious beliefs about divine creation, Jesus rising from the dead, God revealing himself to believers (ie “personal revelation” as their proof of God), arguing that thousands of miracles have been verified as certainties etc.
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over? It's boring. I already told you that Russell's argument is limited to the god of current monotheisms. I asked you if it was convincing to you or not. Don't tell me the story of Creation again. Is it a convincing argument against the god omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good? Answer please. Dont repeat the Creation story.

I also told you that scientific arguments are effective against "primitive" positions such as classical creationism or fundamentalism. I asked you what you would say to a Christian scientist who does not discuss this point with him. Do you have another argument against him? Please, note that he is not denying any scientific datum!
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 08:46 AM   #933
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,405
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I'm saying from the beginning that the argument doesn't refer to any kind of god. It serves for common beliefs in a god with such characteristics.
I would like to know how the Jews and the Xian evade the problem of evil. Can you explain that?
The Jews basically never said that God was omni-anything, and least of all omni-benevolent. I mean even his chosen (i.e., themselves) aren't as much chosen for some reward or anything good, but chosen to do whatever God wanted done. Kinda in the same way as being chosen for the airforce by Emperor Hiro Hito

But basically you only have to look at the story of Job. The whole point it was trying to dispel was the notion that God always gives you exactly what you deserve. Which had the unfortunate implication, as Job's friends illustrate, that if you had some misfortune, people assumed it's God's punishment and you deserved it. Because God only gives such punishments to those who deserve exactly that. Whoever composed that story basically tried to make the point, "no, He doesn't. He can be a dick to good people too."

As for Xians, the official theologians make all sorts of convoluted mind-contortions. Mostly it's in the name of Free Will nowadays (as in, God can't stop some berk from flying into the World Trade Centre, because then he'd be denying him his free will to kill all those people,) but it's not the only argument. The Xian church has had almost two millennia of rationalizing it, and they've come up with the darnest stuff. Really, google "theodicy".

The rest of the people usually just drop one of the three attributes that create the problem, usually the omnipotence, surprisingly enough. Basically God couldn't help some kid with cancer or that pastor who got shot in the middle of praising Jesus in church, because He was busy doing something more important half-way across the globe. (You know, like fixing a football match, helping some rich celebrity land an Oscar-winning role, or helping a rapper compose the latest song about doing drugs and screwing bitches.) The implication being that obviously he can't fix everything at the same time.

Which really brings us to it not really being a problem even if you managed to conclusively prove they're wrong about a god having all 3 of those attributes. The vast majority of their flock wouldn't terribly mind a God that's not omni-EVERYTHING. It's just the hardcore fanboys who need to have him be the bestest imaginable. It's just unfortunate that the fanboys are the ones driving the theology, really.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 15th March 2019 at 09:18 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 09:07 AM   #934
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,764
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Which really brings us to it not really being a problem even if you managed to conclusively prove they're wrong about a god having all 3 of those attributes. The vast majority of their flock wouldn't terribly mind a God that's not omni-EVERYTHING. It's just the hardcore fanboys who need to have him be the bestest imaginable. It's just unfortunate that the fanboys are the ones driving the theology, really.
This is why I've always considered apologetics a step down from belief on the "Intellect" chart.

I have major issues with belief as a concept that fall outside the scope of where this discussion is currently at but taken as itself "I hold this opinion based on belief" is at least self contained and honest.

It's when you have to lie to yourself (and I use that phrase intentionally because on certain levels that's what apologetics essentially are) that you are holding this opinion not because of faith but because you rationally thought about so you have to twist and stretch the facts to reverse engineer a valid thought process to get you to a place that no valid thought process can get to is always, always worse.

"God exists because I believe" is... problematic but at least it's honest. Pretending God exists because the facts support the idea is... not.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 11:29 AM   #935
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,405
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over? It's boring. I already told you that Russell's argument is limited to the god of current monotheisms.
No, not even that. I already gave an example in Judaism. But "current monotheisms" include

- Zoroastrianism (they're few, but they're there) which is a dualist system, and the argument from evil fails horribly on that
- Kemet Orthodoxy (presumably so named because it's nothing like what anyone in Kemet, i.e., ancient Egypt, ever believed) which features aspects of that one god that are all over the place
Etc.

Presuming that if you dealt with Catholicism, that means you've defeated all monotheistic gods ever is... cute.

Edit: I mean, fer fork's sake, even as Xianity goes, the argument from evil fails fundamentally on virtually every GNOSTIC sect ever. And I think we still have at least one of those even on the forum.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 15th March 2019 at 11:33 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 10:42 PM   #936
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,174
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Basically an equally good solution is simply that the Xians are wrong about the attributes they ascribe to god.

Again, a god who's a bit of a dick is actually NOT prevented by debunking the Xian theodicy.
In reality, just about no Christians tend to be seriously challenged by encountering the Problem of Evil. This is, in part because they generally don't have a firm conception of "God" as actually being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in the first place, as well as a lack of any serious attempt to create an actually coherent concept, and the ease with which the entire issue can be just hand waved away, given that their faith doesn't rest on logical reasoning anyways.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The rest of the people usually just drop one of the three attributes that create the problem, usually the omnipotence, surprisingly enough. Basically God couldn't help some kid with cancer or that pastor who got shot in the middle of praising Jesus in church, because He was busy doing something more important half-way across the globe. (You know, like fixing a football match, helping some rich celebrity land an Oscar-winning role, or helping a rapper compose the latest song about doing drugs and screwing bitches.) The implication being that obviously he can't fix everything at the same time.
Another popular workaround is an appeal to some amazing plan. It's not that he can't actually fix things like that, but rather that that would lead to a worse outcome by some arbitrary measure. Using that, one actually can still claim all three, though it is by exploiting the vague nature of what counts as "good." Also of note is that in Christian theology, "good" can be reasonably be boiled down to... "Good is what God says it is." If that's the standard for good, why would one expect there to any problem at all?

When I was a Christian kid and encountered the Problem of Evil... my first reaction was more along the lines of... "If there was no evil, how could we even know what good is?" Basically, it just struck me as an odd direction of questioning to even start trying to go along, given that a few other concepts, like the Free Will one, require there be evil, and everything just being good would... be completely boring and not meaningful anyways. Both for us and for God. Remember, the God of the Bible is quite human-like in a lot of ways. Or perhaps it should be said that man was created in God's image (with some if its personality).
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 15th March 2019 at 10:48 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 11:56 PM   #937
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,089
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
In reality, just about no Christians tend to be seriously challenged by encountering the Problem of Evil. This is, in part because they generally don't have a firm conception of "God" as actually being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in the first place, as well as a lack of any serious attempt to create an actually coherent concept, and the ease with which the entire issue can be just hand waved away, given that their faith doesn't rest on logical reasoning anyways.
It isn't hand-waved away at all. Serious attempts have been made to create a coherent response, and in fact, most philosophers regard the Logical Problem of Evil to have been largely resolved.

From The Internation Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed and non-theological (AFAICT) journal: https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log
This article addresses one form of that problem that is prominent in recent philosophical discussions--that the conflict that exists between the claims of orthodox theism and the facts about evil and suffering in our world is a logical one. This is the "logical problem of evil."
...

Since the situation described by (MSR2) is clearly possible, it appears that it successfully rebuts the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil.

Since (MSR1) and (MSR2) together seem to show contra the claims of the logical problem of evil how it is possible for God and (moral and natural) evil to co-exist, it seems that the Free Will Defense successfully defeats the logical problem of evil.
Here is the atheist Infidels website:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/...l-logical.html
Ever since Alvin Plantinga rebutted J. L. Mackie's logical argument from evil, the majority of contemporary philosophers of religion have come to believe that logical arguments from evil are unsuccessful. This opinion is not unanimous, however. Philosophers Richard Gale, Quentin Smith, and Howard Jordan Sobel challenge the conventional view regarding the prospects for logical arguments from evil. Indeed, Smith has formulated a new version of the logical argument from evil to avoid the pitfalls of Mackie's argument. Nevertheless, many philosophers remain highly skeptical regarding logical arguments from evil.
So some philosophers still have problems with the defence of the logical problem of evil, but the majority do not. It can hardly be described as a problem that has been 'hand-waved away'.

Last edited by GDon; 16th March 2019 at 12:15 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 12:13 AM   #938
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The Jews basically never said that God was omni-anything, and least of all omni-benevolent. (...)
As for Xians, the official theologians make all sorts of convoluted mind-contortions. Mostly it's in the name of Free Will nowadays (as in, God can't stop some berk from flying into the World Trade Centre, because then he'd be denying him his free will to kill all those people,) but it's not the only argument. (...)

The rest of the people usually just drop one of the three attributes that create the problem, usually the omnipotence, surprisingly enough. (...)

Which really brings us to it not really being a problem even if you managed to conclusively prove they're wrong about a god having all 3 of those attributes. The vast majority of their flock wouldn't terribly mind a God that's not omni-EVERYTHING. It's just the hardcore fanboys who need to have him be the bestest imaginable. It's just unfortunate that the fanboys are the ones driving the theology, really.
Then we agree: the argument of evil forces the believer to abandon the concept of a good, omnipotent, omniscient and creator/provident god. But the believer cannot know which of these attributes fails. He knows that the whole fails, but he cannot know which one in concrete. Then the argument creates insecurity. It puts an end to the idea of a protective god. God may not be good, God may not be able to avoid evil, God may not know how to do it. In brief, God is unintelligible. To regain security the believer must do two things: to take refuge in irrationality (“I believe because it is absurd”) and to hate the one who has taken away his previous security: reason. Both things are really dangerous for others and for himself.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 12:15 AM   #939
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
No, not even that. I already gave an example in Judaism. But "current monotheisms" include
My comment was not directed to you.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 12:48 AM   #940
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
On the other hand, I do not deny that science is not a powerful argument against certain types of more "primitive" belief . Science can refute some religious narrative (miracles, mainly). But the believer has some resources without needing abandon every rationality. He can go to the unavoidable gaps of science. Science cannot proof everything at 100%. Then the believer can affirm that these gaps show the possibility of divine providence. For example: God doesn't created man from mud, but insuflates the spirit when evolution allowed it. Or God directed the evolution of Universe in order to...This statements cannot be refuted by the current science and therefore they fall in te field of philosophical debate.

Last edited by David Mo; 16th March 2019 at 02:43 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 01:22 AM   #941
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,979
Free will only works as an explanation for deliberate evil acts. It doesn't explain the random bad luck that is responsible for far more suffering - disease, natural disasters, accidents, etc. It doesn't explain why an omnipotent god allows bad things to happen to good people whilst good things happen to bad people.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 02:07 AM   #942
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,174
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
It isn't hand-waved away at all.
To be clear, I said "can be hand waved away." It can and is most of the time. Remember, most Christians are largely uninterested in such matters. That's entirely separate from the philosophers that have seriously tried to address it.

Separately...

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Since the situation described by (MSR2) is clearly possible, it appears that it successfully rebuts the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil.

Since (MSR1) and (MSR2) together seem to show contra the claims of the logical problem of evil how it is possible for God and (moral and natural) evil to co-exist, it seems that the Free Will Defense successfully defeats the logical problem of evil.[/indent]
It bears remembering that the Free Will Defense successfully works if and only if one accepts propositions that are... implausible, at best, and frequently cannot survive anything close to serious scrutiny. That Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden actually existed as in the story, for example, contrary to what science is telling us. That what Adam and Eve did required incredibly disproportionate punishment to be brought down on all living things in this state of existence (natural evil) for an action that they fundamentally could not have had moral responsibility for, for another. It's not a good solution, but it is one that does provide a "possible" response to the classic formulation of the problem of evil.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 16th March 2019 at 02:50 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 03:12 AM   #943
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
It isn't hand-waved away at all. Serious attempts have been made to create a coherent response, and in fact, most philosophers regard the Logical Problem of Evil to have been largely resolved.

From The Internation Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed and non-theological (AFAICT) journal: https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log

(...)Here is the atheist Infidels website:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/...l-logical.html
Ever since Alvin Plantinga rebutted J. L. Mackie's logical argument from evil, the majority of contemporary philosophers of religion have come to believe that logical arguments from evil are unsuccessful. This opinion is not unanimous, however. Philosophers Richard Gale, Quentin Smith, and Howard Jordan Sobel challenge the conventional view regarding the prospects for logical arguments from evil. Indeed, Smith has formulated a new version of the logical argument from evil to avoid the pitfalls of Mackie's argument. Nevertheless, many philosophers remain highly skeptical regarding logical arguments from evil.
So some philosophers still have problems with the defence of the logical problem of evil, but the majority do not. It can hardly be described as a problem that has been 'hand-waved away'.
The article of Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not end as you quote but:
As it stands, however, some important challenges to the Free Will Defense remain unanswered. It is also important to note that, simply because Plantinga's particular use of free will in fashioning a response to the problem of evil runs into certain difficulties, that does not mean that other theistic uses of free will in distinct kinds of defenses or theodicies would face the same difficulties.
Like any article in an Encyclopedia this one tries not to take sides.
We are not in an encyclopedia. That is why we must explain what those difficulties are that Plantinga cannot solve. Don't you know what they are? Wouldn't it be better if, as a believer, you told here your way of solving the problem of evil? If you want to cite one that is included in the article you quoted, that is fine for me.

There are philosophers and theologians who say yes and others who don't. That doesn't solve much. It can be said with any argument related to God. What is interesting to know is the reasons of each.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 03:16 AM   #944
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,702
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Unlike what other arguments against the existence of God do, the argument of evil is a proof (in the sense that I am using the word) that God (the god of the usual monotheistic religions) does not exist because his mere concept is contradictory. The only way to counter it is to move to the field of irrationality. This is an implicit recognition that rational proofs are against the existence of God. That's what Dostoyevsky recognizes.

Then you are using the word "proof" wrongly! The word means "certainty", ie a literal "fact". It's an absolute term - if something is truly "proven" then it's not possible for anyone to dispute it or doubt it (except by them failing to understand that it has actually been really "proved"). If something really is a "fact" or a "certainty" or "proved" then it is no longer arguable.

If it had ever actually been “shown” or actually “proved” (since you claim proof is the same as evidence) that God does not exist, then it would have been the most important discovery in the history of mankind, and the worlds media would have been full of that news ever since! But of course no such thing has ever occurred, not even one such word of it in any newspaper or TV news anywhere ... zilch, nothing! ... no reports at all of how Russell or you(!) have "shown God does not exist".
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 03:16 AM   #945
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,089
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
To be clear, I said "can be hand waved away." It can and is most of the time. Remember, most Christians are largely uninterested in such matters.
Well, it is either a problem or it isn't. As it isn't a problem (at least, according to most philosophers), what does it matter if Christians hand-wave it away or are uninterested in such matters? What should they do? Look into it and find that it is not generally regarded as a problem?

Last edited by GDon; 16th March 2019 at 03:18 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 03:17 AM   #946
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,405
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
My comment was not directed to you.
Regardless of who it was directed to, it was still wrong. The problem of evil does not even register for a bunch of monotheistic religions.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 03:26 AM   #947
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Then you are using the word "proof" wrongly! The word means "certainty", ie a literal "fact".
That's what you say. I'm using the word "proof" like the scientists and dictionaries I quoted. If you understand what I mean let it be with what the word "really" means and let's discuss what I mean.

I haven't seen anyone who says abominate verbal discussions and get hooked on one of them like you.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 03:27 AM   #948
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,405
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Then we agree: the argument of evil forces the believer to abandon the concept of a good, omnipotent, omniscient and creator/provident god. But the believer cannot know which of these attributes fails. He knows that the whole fails, but he cannot know which one in concrete. Then the argument creates insecurity. It puts an end to the idea of a protective god. God may not be good, God may not be able to avoid evil, God may not know how to do it. In brief, God is unintelligible. To regain security the believer must do two things: to take refuge in irrationality (“I believe because it is absurd”) and to hate the one who has taken away his previous security: reason. Both things are really dangerous for others and for himself.
I'm not sure why you think it creates insecurity for anyone except the most deranged fanboys... err... theologians.

1. For the rest of the world, God being omni-everything is a maximally counter-intuitive claim in the first place. Even if they toe the church line that yeah, he is, they still can't really wrap their mind around omni-anything, so they operate on a much more simplified model. Namely one where he is AT MOST omni on one of those 3 coordinates at a time, but mostly on neither. So that there must be some axis on which God falls shorter than infinity, meh, it's not even something to lose any sleep over.

Most don't even just accept that the whole shebang may not be infinitely perfect, but will pay only lip service even to the theological idea that this is the best imaginable world. You know how you can tell? Because millions of them await to be whisked into a BETTER world. You know, rapture, end of days, whatever you want to call it. They're already pretty sure that a better world is possible for their God, if he'd only get off his ass and get to it already.

2. I'm not sure why you think it would come even as news that God is incomprehensible, much less make anyone insecure. The Catholics had it as an official excuse for nearly 2 millennia now. So your master plan is... what? You're going to tell them, what, that you agree with what they've been saying all along?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 16th March 2019 at 03:31 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 03:58 AM   #949
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,702
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
To show to you that scientists can use proof and evidence as synonyms with various examples is a "creationist" method! Ridiculous. It is give you a proof that when you claimed that proof is ever different to evidence you were absolutely wrong. With facts.

Not only I gave you examples, but I have also given you definitions from scientific journals and Wikipedia in which they say you can use either evidence or proof without mistake. Academic definitions are not valid either? Are they a creationist cheat? Creacionism invades the Earth!

Whether it is in the titles or in the body of the article matters little. The fact is that you recognize that both terms are used as synonyms. (On the other hand you will realize that to prove is the infinitive that corresponds to the noun proof. That is: action and result).

You have no argument to say that it is for short. No argument to know if there are millions or thousands who use "proof" as similar to "evidence". These are statements that you make up. As a creacionsit uses to do.

What has been refuted with my examples is your claim that only "prove" is used to mention the proven facts that support a theory. That's just proving or providing evidence of some statement. Give the cases that support it.

Finally, the examples I've given you I've found in less than half an hour with a single search engine for academic articles. I found many others. I'm going to give you the list - excuse me for just giving you the list; I know you're not going to read them all. Nor can you.

First of all a new definition:

Proof:
noun*\ ˈprüf \
evidence of truth or correctness < gave*proof*of their statement >
the process of or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement (as a mathematical theorem) especially by derivation from other statements by accepted rules of reasoning
a test to find out or show the essential facts or truth < put the theory to the*proof*>
Encyclopedia Britannica Academica.

Then, the list:

-"Drosophila as a Developmental Paradigm of Regressive Brain Evolution: Proof of Principle in the Visual System"; Friedrich, Markus.Brain, Behavior and Evolution; Basel*Tomo*78,*N.º*3,**(Oct 2011): 199-215.

"Theory of personal world outlook*evolution: Categories, provisions,*proofs"; by *Kulikovskaya, Irina E; Middle East Journal of Scientific Research
Article Navigation

"Statistical distribution of amino acid sequences: a proof of Darwinian evolution"; Krystian Eitner*Uwe Koch*Tomasz Gawęda*Jędrzej Marciniak*
Bioinformatics, Volume 26, Issue 23, 1 December 2010, Pages 2933–2935


"Eclipse proof of relativity";
Physics Today, May 2015

"Relativity*for the layman: a simplified account of the history, theory, and proofs of relativity"; Coleman, James A; Pelikan book, 1961

"Interpretation of Mössbauer experiment in a rotating system: A new proof for general* elativity"; *Corda, Christian; Annals of Physics, 04/2015, Volumen 355

Etc, etc., etc.


I am definitely tired of providing you with evidence that the use of proof is not limited to the formal sciences, but can be employed more broadly to encompass any process that leads to the truth of a proposition (whether mathematical or not).

I consider our discussion settled and affirm that Russell's argument is a solid proof of the non-existence of the God of current monotheisms.


Look again at what you have quoted as a dictionary explanation of the word "proof", it says this -

"evidence of truth or correctness < gave*proof*of their statement >"

that (the above quote) says that it is a "proof", but only where the evidence shows the thing is actually "true" & "correct" ... it MUST be literally "true" and literally "correct", otherwise the evidence does not amount to "proof". That's what that sentence says.

Here's their next sentence -

"the process of or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement (as a mathematical theorem) especially by derivation from other statements by accepted rules of reasoning"

That is only describing what is called a "proof" in mathematics. In maths things are said to be "proved", but always where some initial conditions have to be taken for granted, ie where certain starting assumptions have been made. But that is merely a form of terminology that's used in maths, where things are called proofs derived on paper ... but they are not actually detecting and measuring objects and events in the real physical world ... maths is an abstract way of analysing things on paper (ie in theory).

Next line -

"a test to find out or show the essential facts or truth < put the theory to the*proof*>"


All that is doing is saying the word "proof" is often used to mean a test of something ... that's not remotely talking about about "proof" as a claim of certainty. That's an entirely different use of the word.

You can also find the word "proof" used to mean sheets of printed or photographic copies that are used as the original version from which others are produced.

In dictionaries you can find all sorts of definitions for all sorts of words. But old outdated paper dictionaries do not determine what really is fact vs fiction in this universe. They merely list what the compilers regard as the most common usage of various words.

I don't know what nonsense you gave from Wikipedia as supporting your belief that in science proof means the same as “evidence”, but I just searched with very simplest first words I could think of as “wikipedia proof vs evidence in science", and what gives is the following where it makes absolutely clear that of course evidence is not the same as proof and that “proof” is scientifically regarded as probably impossible (for anything!) -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Last edited by IanS; 16th March 2019 at 04:00 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 07:00 AM   #950
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,702
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over? It's boring. I already told you that Russell's argument is limited to the god of current monotheisms. I asked you if it was convincing to you or not. Don't tell me the story of Creation again. Is it a convincing argument against the god omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good? Answer please. Dont repeat the Creation story.

I also told you that scientific arguments are effective against "primitive" positions such as classical creationism or fundamentalism. I asked you what you would say to a Christian scientist who does not discuss this point with him. Do you have another argument against him? Please, note that he is not denying any scientific datum!

The reason why I keep repeating the same dozen or so points to you, is because those points are the things that you need to understand, and which you patently do not understand (unless of course you are merely a very argumentative person who has little regard for the truth and who is just here trying to score points in order to bolster your own ego … which appears to be quite likely).

So, to repeat the point about why injustice and tragedy around the world is not a disproof of God – that so-called “problem of evil” has been made against theists countless times over many decades (and probably over many centuries), and it's not something that has caused even the slightest discomfort or slightest doubt for Popes, Archbishops or other leading spokesmen of the Church, nor has it produced any notable debate in the media to say “here is a point that casts real doubt on the existence of God”, let alone the media reporting that the problem of evil has “shown (“proved”) that God does not exist”. The “problem of evil” has had no impact of that sort at all. However …

… what unarguably did have that sort of impact was when Darwin Published On the Origin of Species in 1859 … to repeat what I said to you before about that – many people at the time were instantly hostile to Darwin and tried to ridicule him in public for suggesting such an absurd untrue & heretical thing as saying that “humans came from monkeys” … and that ridicule and mockery continued from many people even into the 20th century. People at that time (1859 - 1900), even including some very notable intellectuals of the day, could not accept something which so clearly “proved” (if evolution is true) that God had not actually created Man.

And lets be absolutely clear in recognising that was not just some ignorant reaction of the time which no longer persist today. Because even now the Christian church under the reign of recent Popes and under the last few Archbishops of Canterbury, still cannot bring themselves to fully accept that human evolution is true. For example, there is (or was) a YouTube film from a UK Channel-4 TV interview between Richard Dawkins and the previous Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, in which Rowan Williams was directly asked how he reconciled evolution with the belief that God created Man, and Williams rather less than frank reply was to say “Evolution, it's a perfectly good theory … but God created the entirety of the universe in which evolution could take place, so that Man was divinely created that way” (I paraphrased some of what Williams said, because his answer came as a response to several questions put by Dawkins) …

… but what shows is that even now, Archbishops such as Rowan Williams have a very hard time indeed fully accepting that God did not make Man, and instead of answering the question as an honest educated person, what the Archbishop did was to invent an excuse in order to hand-wave away the very unconformable fact that Mankind was almost certainly not created by any God …

… in which respect – recent Popes have (iirc) been similarly, but even more, reluctant, deceptive & disingenuous in their answers to that question of how evolution (if true) does “prove” that God did not create Mankind … and where, upon that question of “if it's true”; no educated person in their right mind today would attempt to argue that human evolution is untrue.

But, lest you should try again to complain about me repeating that point about evolution, what I am pointing out to you is that unlike the “problem of evil”, the discovery of evolution did have, and still continues to have, really serious damaging results for the Christian Church leaders continuing to insist that God made Man. And evolution is something which is so close to literally “proven”, that Popes, Archbishops and the rest of Church officialdom really cannot honestly or credibly deny it or deny the huge damage which that discovery has done to their faith.

And finally (again!), to emphasise the point – that discovery of evolution is what what we call “science”, not philosophy!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 07:27 AM   #951
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,702
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
On the other hand, I do not deny that science is not a powerful argument against certain types of more "primitive" belief . Science can refute some religious narrative (miracles, mainly). But the believer has some resources without needing abandon every rationality. He can go to the unavoidable gaps of science. Science cannot proof everything at 100%. Then the believer can affirm that these gaps show the possibility of divine providence. For example: God doesn't created man from mud, but insuflates the spirit when evolution allowed it. Or God directed the evolution of Universe in order to...This statements cannot be refuted by the current science and therefore they fall in te field of philosophical debate.

Well that's very nice of you to acknowledge that scientists have achieved something.

But it's not just miracle claims that science shows as highly improbable ... it's every religious claim of the supernatural (and that's almost every claim that Christianity makes). What we have discovered from science is incompatible with all those claims of religion. Eg, what we now know (or believe highly likely) about the Big Bang origin of this universe is really not at all like anything originally claimed as creation by God. Such that it leads for example to questions such as (1) why would a God need a Big Bang to form a universe? (2) why wait 13.8 billion years after the bang before forming any humans? (3) why bother to create millions of other species over the course of 3 billion years on Earth, then cause them all to go extinct, before finally forming humans by a slow process of tiny changes in earlier apes? (4) why create all the various short lived sub-atomic particles in any big bang? (5) why create any subatomic particles or atoms or molecules at all in any Big Bang? (6) why bother to create a billion other galaxies each with billions of other stars and planets? (7) why make a universe in which each of those stars and planets keep burning out and getting destroyed? (8) why are humans made entirely from all the same atoms that existed on earth anyway and which all other living creatures have ever been composed of? (9) why make 99.999 ...9% of space instantly deadly to humans? (10) why doesn't the bible tell us anything about germs and disease, or about relativity or the vastness of space, or about quantum theory and the structure of atoms? ... etc. etc.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 07:32 AM   #952
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The article of Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not end as you quote but:

(...)
I'll add something else:
The IEPh article you quote focuses on Plantinga's defence of the need to choose between evil and freedom. This argument has the following flaws:
1. It is useless when talking about natural evil, in which human freedom plays no role.

Besides Plantinga adds several ad hoc assumptions, that is, that they have no other function than to try to save his argument without calculating the unpredictable consequences.

2. It eliminates divine omnipotence with unforeseeable consequences. God cannot contravene the laws of logic. But what logic? The Aristotelian logic? The propositional logic? Mathematical logic ? The theory of sets? If God cannot make time go backwards, for example, he is no longer omnipotent.
3. It introduces the ad hoc assumption that God needs to make man absolutely free in order to be morally responsible. But this contradicts the fact that the human being is not absolutely free. There are many things that he cannot do. Why not make the murderer want to kill his victim, but have an inhibitory mechanism to prevent it? It would still be free, but without the possibility of causing extreme harm.

4.Finally, Pantinga assumes that freedom is the only or supreme end of morality. This is counter-intuitive. Life has generally been invoked as a value superior to freedom, even by most theists. If you had a means of inhibiting the killer instinct of a paedophile psychopath - a pill, for example - you would be a criminal if you refused to apply it in the name of his freedom. That's exactly what God does all the time.

Only under these ad hoc modifications and their consequences can be said that God and the existence of evil are not contradictory.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 07:37 AM   #953
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'm not sure why you think it creates insecurity for anyone except the most deranged fanboys... err... theologians.

1. For the rest of the world, God being omni-everything is a maximally counter-intuitive claim in the first place. Even if they toe the church line that yeah, he is, they still can't really wrap their mind around omni-anything, so they operate on a much more simplified model. (...)
2. I'm not sure why you think it would come even as news that God is incomprehensible, much less make anyone insecure. The Catholics had it as an official excuse for nearly 2 millennia now. So your master plan is... what? You're going to tell them, what, that you agree with what they've been saying all along?
Any rational argument is valid for those who are willing to enter into a rational debate. Against the terrorist who has his finger on the detonator of the bomb there is no possible argument about the existence of God. Against the one who decides that his faith is superior to any reasoning, either.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 07:42 AM   #954
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,702
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
It isn't hand-waved away at all. Serious attempts have been made to create a coherent response, and in fact, most philosophers regard the Logical Problem of Evil to have been largely resolved.

From The Internation Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed and non-theological (AFAICT) journal: https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log
This article addresses one form of that problem that is prominent in recent philosophical discussions--that the conflict that exists between the claims of orthodox theism and the facts about evil and suffering in our world is a logical one. This is the "logical problem of evil."
...

Since the situation described by (MSR2) is clearly possible, it appears that it successfully rebuts the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil.

Since (MSR1) and (MSR2) together seem to show contra the claims of the logical problem of evil how it is possible for God and (moral and natural) evil to co-exist, it seems that the Free Will Defense successfully defeats the logical problem of evil.
Here is the atheist Infidels website:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/...l-logical.html
Ever since Alvin Plantinga rebutted J. L. Mackie's logical argument from evil, the majority of contemporary philosophers of religion have come to believe that logical arguments from evil are unsuccessful. This opinion is not unanimous, however. Philosophers Richard Gale, Quentin Smith, and Howard Jordan Sobel challenge the conventional view regarding the prospects for logical arguments from evil. Indeed, Smith has formulated a new version of the logical argument from evil to avoid the pitfalls of Mackie's argument. Nevertheless, many philosophers remain highly skeptical regarding logical arguments from evil.
So some philosophers still have problems with the defence of the logical problem of evil, but the majority do not. It can hardly be described as a problem that has been 'hand-waved away'.

Leaving aside the so-called problem of evil for a moment - how do you explain the failure of the bible to mention anything about human evolution and the fact that by 1859 we finally discovered that God had not made humans after all?

Do you honestly have any credible answer for how the bible could have made such a huge and fundemental mistake as that?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 07:46 AM   #955
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Look again at what you have quoted as a dictionary explanation of the word "proof", it says this -

"evidence of truth or correctness < gave*proof*of their statement >"

that (the above quote) says that it is a "proof", but only where the evidence shows the thing is actually "true" & "correct" ... it MUST be literally "true" and literally "correct", otherwise the evidence does not amount to "proof". That's what that sentence says.
According to you when I say that I have evidence that you lie is not that I have evidence that it is true you lie.

You have made such a mental mess that you don't know how to get out.
Look, when I say I have a proof that something (the theory of evolution) is true is the same as saying I have evidence that something (the theory of evolution) is true.

You don't seem to understand it that way, but that's the way I use the term. It so that the scientific articles I quoted use this word. And that's how I've used it from the beginning.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 07:58 AM   #956
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But, lest you should try again to complain about me repeating that point about evolution, what I am pointing out to you is that unlike the “problem of evil”, the discovery of evolution did have, and still continues to have, really serious damaging results for the Christian Church leaders continuing to insist that God made Man. And evolution is something which is so close to literally “proven”, that Popes, Archbishops and the rest of Church officialdom really cannot honestly or credibly deny it or deny the huge damage which that discovery has done to their faith.

And finally (again!), to emphasise the point – that discovery of evolution is what what we call “science”, not philosophy!
So your only argument against all these people is that they are dishonest. Isn't that an ad hominem argument and a gratuitous insult? First you'll have to prove that they are. Because they say they accept the theory of evolution. They interpret it differently from yours. Both the Bible and evolution.

By the way, do you know of any scientific book on evolution that include the problem of God's existence? Or an article.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 08:01 AM   #957
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,702
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
That's what you say. I'm using the word "proof" like the scientists and dictionaries I quoted. If you understand what I mean let it be with what the word "really" means and let's discuss what I mean.

I haven't seen anyone who says abominate verbal discussions and get hooked on one of them like you.

See this -

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di.../english/prove


prove
(pruːv**)
Word forms:*3rd person singular present tense*proves**,*present participleproving**,*past tense*proved**,*past participle*proved**,*past participleproven**
1.*link verb

If something*proves*to*be*true*or*to*have a particular quality, it becomes*clear*after a period of time that it is true or has that quality.
None of the rumours has ever been proved to be true.*[VERB*to-infinitive]
In the past this process of transition has often proven difficult.*[VERB*adjective]
...an experiment which was to prove a source of inspiration for many years to come.
*[VERB*noun]

Synonyms:*turn out,*come out,*end up,*be found to be***More Synonyms of prove
2.*verb

If you*prove*that*something is true, you show by*means*of*argument*or*evidence*that it is*definitely*true.
You brought this charge. You prove it!*[VERB*noun]
The results prove that regulation of the salmon farming industry is inadequate
.[VERB*that]

...trying to prove how groups of animals have evolved.*[VERB*wh]
That made me hopping mad and determined to prove him wrong.
*[VERB*noun adjective]

History will prove him to have been right all along.*[VERB*noun to-infinitive]
...a proven cause of cancer.
*[VERB-ed]


Those definitions state that "proof" means actual fact of literal certainty, with no room for anything else.

If you calim to "prove" some real thing in this universe, then you are claiming to have shown complete certainty of fact beyond all possible argument, objection, or doubt.

"Proof" is NOT te same thing as "evidence".
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 08:04 AM   #958
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well that's very nice of you to acknowledge that scientists have achieved something.

But it's not just miracle claims that science shows as highly improbable ... it's every religious claim of the supernatural (and that's almost every claim that Christianity makes). What we have discovered from science is incompatible with all those claims of religion. Eg, what we now know (or believe highly likely) about the Big Bang origin of this universe is really not at all like anything originally claimed as creation by God. Such that it leads for example to questions such as (1) why would a God need a Big Bang to form a universe? (2) why wait 13.8 billion years after the bang before forming any humans? (3) why bother to create millions of other species over the course of 3 billion years on Earth, then cause them all to go extinct, before finally forming humans by a slow process of tiny changes in earlier apes? (4) why create all the various short lived sub-atomic particles in any big bang? (5) why create any subatomic particles or atoms or molecules at all in any Big Bang? (6) why bother to create a billion other galaxies each with billions of other stars and planets? (7) why make a universe in which each of those stars and planets keep burning out and getting destroyed? (8) why are humans made entirely from all the same atoms that existed on earth anyway and which all other living creatures have ever been composed of? (9) why make 99.999 ...9% of space instantly deadly to humans? (10) why doesn't the bible tell us anything about germs and disease, or about relativity or the vastness of space, or about quantum theory and the structure of atoms? ... etc. etc.
I don't know if you realize that you are asking the classic metaphysical question: Why is reality like this and not otherwise? The Christian will answer you by saying that science does not have an answer for it either. And to know that God exists is not to be able to explain God's reasons for doing things.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 08:10 AM   #959
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,174
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Well, it is either a problem or it isn't. As it isn't a problem (at least, according to most philosophers),
When it comes to the reasoning, if one's invoking the Free Will defense, it's only "not a problem" in the sense that there is a workaround. Unfortunately, the workaround simply doesn't work for many if one takes into account that it requires specific beliefs to be held that are frequently not being held, among other issues.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
what does it matter if Christians hand-wave it away or are uninterested in such matters? What should they do?
Still getting defensive here? I stated that it does happen and that such was one of the reasons why the Problem of Evil has little chance of causing serious challenge to nearly any Christian's faith. This was stated in a factual manner, not a judgemental one. Do you really want a more serious attempt to be judgemental about it that badly?

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Look into it and find that it is not generally regarded as a problem?
Come now. You already know that this is little more than a cheap attempt to dodge engaging the actual points that have been made, including in your citations.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 16th March 2019 at 08:14 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 08:12 AM   #960
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
See this -

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di.../english/prove


prove
(pruːv**)
Word forms:*3rd person singular present tense*proves**,*present participleproving**,*past tense*proved**,*past participle*proved**,*past participleproven**
1.*link verb

If something*proves*to*be*true*or*to*have a particular quality, it becomes*clear*after a period of time that it is true or has that quality.
None of the rumours has ever been proved to be true.*[VERB*to-infinitive]
In the past this process of transition has often proven difficult.*[VERB*adjective]
...an experiment which was to prove a source of inspiration for many years to come.
*[VERB*noun]

Synonyms:*turn out,*come out,*end up,*be found to be***More Synonyms of prove
2.*verb

If you*prove*that*something is true, you show by*means*of*argument*or*evidence*that it is*definitely*true.
You brought this charge. You prove it!*[VERB*noun]
The results prove that regulation of the salmon farming industry is inadequate
.[VERB*that]

...trying to prove how groups of animals have evolved.*[VERB*wh]
That made me hopping mad and determined to prove him wrong.
*[VERB*noun adjective]

History will prove him to have been right all along.*[VERB*noun to-infinitive]
...a proven cause of cancer.
*[VERB-ed]


Those definitions state that "proof" means actual fact of literal certainty, with no room for anything else.

If you calim to "prove" some real thing in this universe, then you are claiming to have shown complete certainty of fact beyond all possible argument, objection, or doubt.

"Proof" is NOT te same thing as "evidence".
In the same site that you quoted:

Quote:
To prove: (may take a clause as object or an infinitive)
to establish or demonstrate the truth or validity of; verify, esp by using an established sequence of procedures or statements

2.
to establish the quality of, esp by experiment or scientific analysis
As you see "proof" can be said by different ways. This is my way.

Examples:

Quote:
1.
to test by experiment, a standard, etc.; subject to a testing process; try out
2.
to establish as true; demonstrate to be a fact
3.
to establish the validity or authenticity of (esp. a will)
4.
to show (oneself) to be capable, dependable, etc.
5. Archaic
to experience; learn or know by experience
6. Ancient Mathematics
to test or verify the correctness of (a calculation, etc.)
7. Printing
to take a proof of (type, etc.)
verb intransitive
8.
to be found or shown by experience or trial; turn out to be
a guess that proved right.
Why don't you just let it go? You're getting worse all the time.

Last edited by David Mo; 16th March 2019 at 08:13 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.