The Nature and Usefulness of "Proof"

[Locke]

I get comments like this all time:

Just one more thing. Give me some actual evidence, some REAL, good, legible PROOF that God, Heaven, and Hell are real, without quoting, referring to, or in any way even INSINUATING the Bible. And, no, the things that can't be proven scientifically don't count.

And personally, I think it's ridiculous. Give me real proof, outside of *insert text/commonly held belief/science associated to a specific belief* that any belief is real. Truth is faiths of any sort, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Secular Humanist, etc. CAN'T be proven. That's the nature of a belief, of a worldview. And yes, everyone believes in something, even if their something is "nothing," like Secular Humanists claim. It's still a belief, and still can't be proven, often even within the belief, let alone from external evidence. Evolutionary science isn't science because science, as a method, can only study what is, not what was, and evolution happens too slowly to be studied, at least, not before a new theory takes its place. The Bible is more or less airtight from the inside because seeming contradictions are explained as "things no man can properly understand." Seeming contradictions in Secular Humanism are explained as "things we do not yet understand."

Everyone has a way of rationalizing the problems in their respective faiths. It all comes down to what you believe, and why you picked that over all other beliefs; beyond that, proof is of little value. Once you've found a reason that works for you, there is little that can be done to change that. My personal belief is that Jesus is God, and that he is the only path to Heaven. I believe that because I think that out of all the faiths I know, Christianity has the most explainable contradictions, and in general seems to be the one that would work best overall. And there's not a damn thing you could ever do to change that, because my reasoning is what matters to me. The same goes for you; you believe in what you believe because the reasons make sense to you, and there's not a damn thing I can do to make you believe otherwise. Can't we just leave it at that?

EDIT: Seeing as how people are using this topic as an excuse to, yet again, attack people's beliefs, here's the plain and simple version of the premise of this topic. Please restrain your debating to this:

All people see the world from their perspective. It's how we're made, because our scope of observation is limited. There are many people who hold to many different beliefs. There is no absolute way to prove one view or another. We all have reasons for holding our own view, but those reasons matter only to us, and perhaps other like-minded people. Consequently, it is pointless to try to make others believe what we believe, because it won't happen. It is better to live out our lives the way we believe we ought to, and let people come to their own conclusions based on that.

[HipHopScribe]

It's not accurate to say that science as a method can only study what is, not what was, as there is observable evidence of past events, which can be used for educated reasoning, and experiments can be used to test hypotheses. It is also not accurate to say that evolution happens too slowly for it to be directly observed, as the evolution of simple bacteria can be observed in a relatively short time frame.

As for the usefulness of proof, it is true that every human holds beliefs that can not be objectively proven. In defense of the people asking for proof of Christianity, however, it is one thing to hold a unshakable belief as a personal truth, it is another to proclaim it as true to others. I would say that is where the burden of proof has fallen on Christianity in the eyes of many, because of its history as a violently missionary religion, whose followers often proclaim their beliefs as objective truths. This can be seen today with intelligent design, which many Christians try to cast itself as objective science, despite its lack of actual science.

[Justananomaly]

I believe only what I see and what can be proven, I do have faith too but only for a small handful of things and ideas.

But if you want proof in my god, here you go.

[Gow616]

A statue equals proof? Surely you jest in such humour as befitting a tumour.

If that were the case, anyone could point to a statue and state unequivocally that therein lies all the proof one needs.

Proof lies not in science or details that can be so easily pinned down because what is proof for one individual is not proof for another.

All humans are perceptive and subjective beings period.

Since that is the case, then it is up the individual to decide not others for him/her or that others should force their perception onto others, nay, the individual must decide what is proof to him/her and base their belief or non-belief on that.

One can fight and debate until the stars die out about what exists and what does not, whether this scientific bit of data taken out of context means this or that but it will always, always, always boil down to the perception of the individual.

[Justananomaly]

Thats not a statue, hes standing on one noodle to demonstrate the imbalance of your opinions and inaccuracy of you believing that he is a statue. You

Want more proof?

[Weesnaw]

Originally Posted by Gow616

A statue equals proof? Surely you jest in such humour as befitting a tumour.

If that were the case, anyone could point to a statue and state unequivocally that therein lies all the proof one needs.

Proof lies not in science or details that can be so easily pinned down because what is proof for one individual is not proof for another.

All humans are perceptive and subjective beings period.

Since that is the case, then it is up the individual to decide not others for him/her or that others should force their perception onto others, nay, the individual must decide what is proof to him/her and base their belief or non-belief on that.

One can fight and debate until the stars die out about what exists and what does not, whether this scientific bit of data taken out of context means this or that but it will always, always, always boil down to the perception of the individual.

Gow you should know better making such a response to someone who claims to be a pastafarian.

Also, he said that the statue was HIS proof, not undeniable proof for everyone that the FSM exists.

[Netrix]

I would like to know how you believe that Christianity has the most explainable contradictions.

As for proof... Do not expect people to believe something just because you believe it, especially since (as you said) you can not prove it. Many religious people try to convert others and get upset when they do not see things their way.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe

It's not accurate to say that science as a method can only study what is, not what was, as there is observable evidence of past events, which can be used for educated reasoning, and experiments can be used to test hypotheses. It is also not accurate to say that evolution happens too slowly for it to be directly observed, as the evolution of simple bacteria can be observed in a relatively short time frame.

As for the usefulness of proof, it is true that every human holds beliefs that can not be objectively proven. In defense of the people asking for proof of Christianity, however, it is one thing to hold a unshakable belief as a personal truth, it is another to proclaim it as true to others. I would say that is where the burden of proof has fallen on Christianity in the eyes of many, because of its history as a violently missionary religion, whose followers often proclaim their beliefs as objective truths. This can be seen today with intelligent design, which many Christians try to cast itself as objective science, despite its lack of actual science.

Science can study evidences of the past, but not with any certainty. For instance, we have radiocarbon dating methods, but we can only guess as to how much of this specfic carbon isotope actually existed in materials before a certain point, somewhere around 6000 years I think. Radiocarbon dating is one of our most reliable dating methods, but it can't help us if we don't know how much C14 was in the animal/person/etc. when it died. Many of the sciences dealing with the past circularly reference each other, so that it become very difficult to find out where actual numbers are coming from. Even science of the present, such as chemistry, physics, or even mathematics, is constantly being re-written to the point where within the course of a year entire fields can experience major shifts. So, while the scientific method is a useful tool, it can never reveal things that are "true." It can't prove a thing. It can, however, offer workable answers. We can invent something that works, whether or not it actually corresponds to reality. This is because we are humans with limited scope of knowledge and observation. "Truth" is a very precious and rare commodity, oft imitated but rare indeed.

I'm not a fan of the "shove Jesus up your throat" school of missions, but I won't pretend as if I'm not a Christian either. I won't say, "Only Christianity could possibly be right," because the same really goes for everyone. I say I believe it is right, and why; I just did, in fact. I leave others to draw their own conclusions. There's nothing more I can do, period, so I leave it at that. Both religious and non-religious people really need to take a hint, in that regard.

Violent missionary religion? Unless you refer to the Crusades, and I fully apologize for that little debacle, I'm not quite certain what you mean. While many Christians can't see even the possibility that other truths may possibly exist, missions have failed to be a priority for the average American Christian. Places like China and Africa are actually sending missionaries to places like the US and the UK, believe it or not. Jesus does command that we make believers of all people, but we can only do so "passively." There are those open to direct, in your face missionary work. Often, these are people who have never heard of Christianity and have no preconcieved nagative notions, and only know of the faith by the missionary's actions. In place such as America, however, it is better to let our presence be known, and do everything in our power to better society; let others decide for themselves, in essence, as we live our lives the way we believe we ought to.

ID isn't a Christian phenomenon, not in the least. Creationism, that is, because that implies the creation as described in Genesis. ID is simply, "some inelligent thing somehow must have created everything somehow." Not Biblical in the least. In fact, it's a rather simple thing to prove, compared to God:

Time can't be infinite, because if it was, we could never reach specific points in time. There can't be an infinite amount of time before right now, because we would never reach now. Time would have to be finite

Matter can't be created or destroyed. Now, this may imply that it has always been, but if time hasn't always been, neither can matter; matter, as we know it, has to exist in a time and a place. Matter must have not always existed.

Matter, time, and space are all intrinsicly linked. Because time cannot be infinite, neither can matter or space. So they haven't always been. If they haven't always been, then they had to be made, no? Only things that have always been are not made. In order to make a universe like we can see together, whatever the maker is, it had to be powerful and intelligent. Powerful, because there's a whole lot of stuff in our universe, to be sure. Intelligent, because of the complexity observed both on our own world as well as the universe on a whole.

And that is the key argument behind ID. It implies a powerful and intelligent being. That's it. Mickey Mouse could be God as far as the argument is concerned, so long as he always existed, and was both powerful and intelligent enough to make the universe. Christianity isn't quite so open-ended.

Originally Posted by Justananomaly

I believe only what I see and what can be proven, I do have faith too but only for a small handful of things and ideas.

But if you want proof in my god, here you go.

I love Pastafarianism. The 8-I'd-Rather-You-Didn'ts always crack me up, and I've actually used some of their arguments before, such as statistical relation does not imply causality.

Originally Posted by Gow616

A statue equals proof? Surely you jest in such humour as befitting a tumour.

If that were the case, anyone could point to a statue and state unequivocally that therein lies all the proof one needs.

Proof lies not in science or details that can be so easily pinned down because what is proof for one individual is not proof for another.

All humans are perceptive and subjective beings period.

Since that is the case, then it is up the individual to decide not others for him/her or that others should force their perception onto others, nay, the individual must decide what is proof to him/her and base their belief or non-belief on that.

One can fight and debate until the stars die out about what exists and what does not, whether this scientific bit of data taken out of context means this or that but it will always, always, always boil down to the perception of the individual.

Exactly. This is what so few people fail or even refuse to realize. No matter how objective the world may or may not be, in the end, we aren't. We can insist on our truths as being important and relevant to all, but ultimately, that produces nothing beneficial. It's rather funny, me being a Christian and all, but I actually admire you and identify with your viewpoints more than most people here and most people I know in real life as well.

Originally Posted by Netrix

I would like to know how you believe that Christianity has the most explainable contradictions.

As for proof... Do not expect people to believe something just because you believe it, especially since (as you said) you can not prove it. Many religious people try to convert others and get upset when they do not see things their way.

I said it. In Christianity, any possible contradiction is "something we can't understand." Or at least, not until we're dead; it's a wonderful solution. If we die, we die, oh well. If we're right, well then, all the better, no? So, to me, that is the most logical solution. It works for me. If it doesn't work for you, fine, it's not like you have to believe everything I do. Now, if Christianity is true, you're kinda screwed, but it's not as if my arguments will ever change your mind a bit, no?

Oh, and a slight correction:

Many people try to convert others and get upset when they do not see things their way.

It's just how we're wired, and not really exclusive to any religious preference.

Also, I think I've already said I don't expect anyone to be actually changed by what I said:

Once you've found a reason that works for you, there is little that can be done to change that.

The same goes for you; you believe in what you believe because the reasons make sense to you, and there's not a damn thing I can do to make you believe otherwise. Can't we just leave it at that?

Note: Just in case you're thinking this, no, you can't prove your views either. Beliefs can't be proven, they are basic assumptions that we as humans have to make about the world before we can begin rationalize anything. All reasoning and logic is tainted by whatever belief we hold.

[SilentWalrus]

Ok.
I personally don't believe in a higher being because I think that religion is as legit as Rastafarianism. But really..if you research you'll find that god didn't make your precious book, people did, we decided what Christ was going to look like in the future. Also, don't make me find evidence as it's out there you go find it yourself.

[Darth Drunk]

I think I am with Silent on this one, all religions make just as much sense as pastafarianism. There explanations are a little out there but who is to say they aren't right? Since no religion is concerned with "proof" then for all we know is that a giant spaghetti monster created the universe. I do not necessarily believe in science I choose what I want to believe and I stick with that, so in the end I have a mixture of beliefs. Now if you can tell me as to why Christianity is any more correct than pastafarianism without using proof (since you said proof is nothing) then I will convert myself to Christianity. (You cannot deem something correct by basing it of the fundamentals it is based on)

[HipHopScribe]

Originally Posted by Locke

Science can study evidences of the past, but not with any certainty. For instance, we have radiocarbon dating methods, but we can only guess as to how much of this specfic carbon isotope actually existed in materials before a certain point, somewhere around 6000 years I think. Radiocarbon dating is one of our most reliable dating methods, but it can't help us if we don't know how much C14 was in the animal/person/etc. when it died. Many of the sciences dealing with the past circularly reference each other, so that it become very difficult to find out where actual numbers are coming from. Even science of the present, such as chemistry, physics, or even mathematics, is constantly being re-written to the point where within the course of a year entire fields can experience major shifts. So, while the scientific method is a useful tool, it can never reveal things that are "true." It can't prove a thing. It can, however, offer workable answers. We can invent something that works, whether or not it actually corresponds to reality. This is because we are humans with limited scope of knowledge and observation. "Truth" is a very precious and rare commodity, oft imitated but rare indeed.

The beauty of science is that it is constantly being re-written, as our knowledge is expanded, it's a strength of the method, not a weakness. Absolute "truths" are mostly the territory claimed by religion and other beliefs, if we want to talk about truth at all in regards to science, it would be more accurate to say "practical truths", knowledge we can put into practice, to explain our observable universe sufficiently to get some stuff done in a way that is useful to our "reality". Better explanations, and more useful stuff often comes along, so our practical truths are fluid, as a recognition of the nature of our existence.

I'm not a fan of the "shove Jesus up your throat" school of missions, but I won't pretend as if I'm not a Christian either. I won't say, "Only Christianity could possibly be right," because the same really goes for everyone. I say I believe it is right, and why; I just did, in fact. I leave others to draw their own conclusions. There's nothing more I can do, period, so I leave it at that. Both religious and non-religious people really need to take a hint, in that regard.

Violent missionary religion? Unless you refer to the Crusades, and I fully apologize for that little debacle, I'm not quite certain what you mean. While many Christians can't see even the possibility that other truths may possibly exist, missions have failed to be a priority for the average American Christian. Places like China and Africa are actually sending missionaries to places like the US and the UK, believe it or not. Jesus does command that we make believers of all people, but we can only do so "passively." There are those open to direct, in your face missionary work. Often, these are people who have never heard of Christianity and have no preconcieved nagative notions, and only know of the faith by the missionary's actions. In place such as America, however, it is better to let our presence be known, and do everything in our power to better society; let others decide for themselves, in essence, as we live our lives the way we believe we ought to.

The Crusades are not the only violent action undertaken by Christians, just look at the forced conversion that occurred in central America when the Spanish arrived, they burned and destroyed vestiges of native religion, and converted the natives to Christianity under threat of death if they continued their native religion. And that's not an isolated incident in the European conquering of the world.

ID isn't a Christian phenomenon, not in the least. Creationism, that is, because that implies the creation as described in Genesis. ID is simply, "some inelligent thing somehow must have created everything somehow." Not Biblical in the least. In fact, it's a rather simple thing to prove, compared to God:

Time can't be infinite, because if it was, we could never reach specific points in time. There can't be an infinite amount of time before right now, because we would never reach now. Time would have to be finite

Matter can't be created or destroyed. Now, this may imply that it has always been, but if time hasn't always been, neither can matter; matter, as we know it, has to exist in a time and a place. Matter must have not always existed.

Matter, time, and space are all intrinsicly linked. Because time cannot be infinite, neither can matter or space. So they haven't always been. If they haven't always been, then they had to be made, no? Only things that have always been are not made. In order to make a universe like we can see together, whatever the maker is, it had to be powerful and intelligent. Powerful, because there's a whole lot of stuff in our universe, to be sure. Intelligent, because of the complexity observed both on our own world as well as the universe on a whole.

And that is the key argument behind ID. It implies a powerful and intelligent being. That's it. Mickey Mouse could be God as far as the argument is concerned, so long as he always existed, and was both powerful and intelligent enough to make the universe. Christianity isn't quite so open-ended.

Most of ID's strong proponents are Christian, as the Discovery Institute is the chief force behind the movement. That it's not strictly Biblical in its arguments is no surprise, the whole point was to remove the strictly Biblical elements, so you get pseudo-science that is more palatable as an "academic" alternative, while still jiving with Christian beliefs. I won't get into the logic of ID, the point is the lack of scientific support, and the insistence of many that it is taught as science at public schools.

[Netrix]

Originally Posted by Locke

I said it. In Christianity, any possible contradiction is "something we can't understand." Or at least, not until we're dead; it's a wonderful solution. If we die, we die, oh well. If we're right, well then, all the better, no? So, to me, that is the most logical solution. It works for me. If it doesn't work for you, fine, it's not like you have to believe everything I do. Now, if Christianity is true, you're kinda screwed, but it's not as if my arguments will ever change your mind a bit, no?

Oh, and a slight correction:

It's just how we're wired, and not really exclusive to any religious preference.

Also, I think I've already said I don't expect anyone to be actually changed by what I said:



Note: Just in case you're thinking this, no, you can't prove your views either. Beliefs can't be proven, they are basic assumptions that we as humans have to make about the world before we can begin rationalize anything. All reasoning and logic is tainted by whatever belief we hold.

The problem with "if we die, we die, oh well" is that that would mean that anything good or bad that we have done in our life does not mean anything (to us). I consider it a waste of someone's life if they do not try to make the most out of it, because they will not get another chance to experience what can be experienced in life. If someone thinks that they can accomplish that by worshiping something that they can not see and can not prove, that is their choice, but I doubt that someone can really make the most out of their life when they are confined by dogma. They would have to be, otherwise they would not be practicing their religion the way they should.

If Christianity is true, oh well, I am screwed. However, if Islam is true, I would still be screwed, even if I was Christian. The same goes for Judaism, and several other religions. We are all "damned" (by other religions) no matter what religious views we have. At least if Zoroastrianism is true, I would make it to paradise when the universe ends.

I did not say that it was any specific religion. Of course, most of what I have personally encountered has been Christians doing that sort of thing, but that is probably because I have lived in a predominately Christian area.

Back to proof... Science does prove things. The questionable thing here is if you are willing to accept the proof or not. It appears obvious that you do not accept it.

Science has proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun. (Some Christians still believe that everything revolves around the Earth.) Science has proven that the Earth is not flat. Science has proven many things.

I do not ever recall a religion proving science wrong. There are things that science can not explain, for now. Three hundred years ago, no one really knew what electricity was. It could not be explained. Yet science eventually explained what it is, how it works, and several other things. Science may also eventually explain gravity fully and other things that are not fully explained.

...evolution happens too slowly to be studied, at least, not before a new theory takes its place.

"New theory"? Why would a fact be replaced with a theory?