How do you prove anything?!!
My conclusion is that NOTHING is really factual or true. NOTHING can be completely proven.......But what say you?
Proof essentially begins with a (general agreement) of certain principles or rules. For instance most people would agree that water is (wet). Theoretically someone could say; "No it's not! Water is dry!"
Another example might be someone claiming a $100 bill is worth more than a sheet of notebook paper. However in the end the only real proof this is true is because (we as a society have collectively agreed) the $100 bill piece of paper is worth more!
If there is no agreement regarding a (base foundation) then it's impossible to prove anything. Nevertheless if we do have an agreement that is when we can apply logic or show a linear progression which "proves" one thing over another.
There must be an agreement or accepted principles otherwise it's always going to be the old adage: "Perception is reality".
Hello dashingscorpio.....I like how you began; using the concept of individuals first agreeing on an idea before it can be considered as true. But then again what's true for one group is false for the other. And yet facts continue to change with time
Yes facts and things can change over time. At one point the mineral salt was used in some cultures to purchase things. Today salt is practically worthless. A 19 year old is told her virginity is valuable by society but not so at age 50. Why?
I'm glad we agree dashingscorpio, because my next point will be on the entire foundation of science that many people depends so heavily on. I can;t understand why someone would choose to believe in something fragile that will be archaic in 50 years.
When I look and analyze the whole conundrum of the present and past disagreeing with what is true. It makes you then able to make a calculated guess that what we now know will in the near future become old school, old knowledge, wrong knowledge- the perception of a flat world. All these arguments about people only believing in evidence-what they can prove, Only trusting in research and etc...is really just the knew ignorance of the far future...isn't it. Even this huge talk about logic's and how we should always think logical....WHAT IS THAT! Logic's is the biggest anti-philosophical ideology I've ever seen...on my campus there is a course called logic's that you have to do if you want to either take on law or some business subjects...One of the first things that they teach you in that class is how to argue, and from what I've heard---If a dog is an animal and a cat is an animal then a dog is a cat....That's the logic's that they teach you, how to make false statements and to create intellectual round-abouts.
Take lawyers for example they make inductive arguments (conclusions before evidence) and spew deadly fallacies just so that they can win an argument. But yet people count them as some of the smartest people or occupation a person can hold. Now that's just plain ridiculous. Whenever you can materialize statements that makes killing someone right, or conjure the plausibility from wormed arguments that a man raping a woman should not go to prison IS NOT LOGICAL!
In fact all of this convinces me that this entire polluted concept of knowledge, logical and critical thinking and a need to find a the evidence in everything is just re-inventing arrogance in the form of intricate-well-spoken-words. After all a great man once said that foolishness is still foolishness whenever a scientist says it.
And then that brings me to the science argument---As a man of science hasn't any body noticed that science is just good-guesses of everything, accidents that created the world..why i say this is that science has always been Wrong!!! But yet people continue to trust in this EVIDENCE!
Take the plum pudding model, Bohr model and others all were thought to be correct but are now wrong! (astronomical guesstimates)....Even the now atomic physics that people trust in so much is about to be WRONG (read up on neutrinos!).. science continues to make guesses throughout time and people are believing more and more in what they think they can prove.HA!
Why not believe in god
The old "science is flawed" argument for god, eh? Remember when you believed in Santa Claus? Then you grew up and could no longer find evidence for SC? It's the same for god, we just can't find the evidence for a god. Who, What, When, Where is it?
Hi lele, that is such a poor anomaly...over a Billion people still believe in god as adults but how much still believes in Santa clause. In fact in Jamaica there are some people who don't even know what Santa clause is
Regarding your additional comment to the question, logic can only use what we know. In other words, it was logical for people of the past to think that the Earth was flat, because they couldn't see it from space. If I had no knowledge of the Earth as a planet, and no access to modern scientific journals, then I might also make the conclusion that the Earth is flat. Logic is a way that we make conclusions about the information we're given. If I watch three apples fall from a tree, I use logic to assume that the fourth will also fall, rather than shooting up into the sky. If an apple were to shoot up into the sky, logic would then tell me that something different occurred than before, and I would need to do more observations to find out why.
So, while a great many scientific theories have been proven wrong, that doesn't discredit science or logic as a system of understanding. It just means that, as we incorporate more evidence and methods of observation, we dispel old theories and develop new ones. So yes, there is a very good chance that the theories we believe today will be dis-proven or modified in the future. But, the thing that will disprove them is the same thing that proved them in the first place; science, logic, and evidence. We can use that one system to constantly learn more about the world we live in. We can use it to build upon old knowledge and understand new information. This isn't a flaw, it's a virtue. It means that science and logic CAN exist into the future. We can still use its principles a thousand years from now. Each failed theory is just a building block for the future. It strengthens the foundation, it doesn't knock it down.
Lawyers aren't a great example because they are trained to argue and they're trained to win. Twisting information to meet a specific narrative isn't the same as making a conclusion based on evidence. And in response to "why not believe in god", it's the same reason we no longer believe the Earth is flat. God was another one of those failed theories; a building block to a future that wants to keep learning and raising itself higher.
Excellent answer and very well presented too!
Hi. If it is logical to use what is currently wrong to prove what you don't know then logics is wrong, and if logics is what atheist uses to disprove god then they are wrong. God can't be compared to the earth flat because people still believe in him
I believe what M. T. Dremer is pointing out is (learning) something (new) changes things. I suppose people can prove the existence of God or not when they die. Just as being able to see the earth from space proved it was round.
And you're right dashingscorpio...You see if were just learning then we don't know the truth yet and hence can't talk about relying on evidence and facts if we don't know them...yet people try to say that god lacks proof when everything else does!
Atheists do not try to "disprove" god. We simply do not believe that evidence exists for a god or gods. If you have proof, please present it!
A dis-proven theory isn't 'wrong', it's 'incomplete'. Again, it's like a staircase of knowledge, not a reset button. We move forward knowing more. And the further we move forward, the less the god theory fits in.
Hi guys sorry it took me so long to respond. M.T an incomplete puzzle isn't right...And lela can you then tell me why many atheists do not believe in god (I think your answer will have something to do with proof)
An incomplete puzzle is actually a good way to describe it. Guess the picture based on a few pieces and anything outlandish fits. Find a bunch more and you start to get a more focused picture. God was a guess based on a few pieces that no longer fits
Again what you're saying is highly opinionated and lacks any proof whatsoever...We're trying to have a sarcastic, word bending free conversation but you continue to make false analogies based upon what you think. how can you say that god was a guess?
I speak with analogies because, as a writer, it's my way of conveying complex concepts in a small space. I say god was a guess because he fits into the laws of our imagination (art, writing, etc.) but not into the laws of reality (science, math,etc.)
Respectfully, you do know that analogies are the weakest form of argument right? And also you compare god to science but didn't you know that much of science is made of guesstimates...(failed theories) but yet god continues to be much lauded y?
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's true. Who wouldn't find eternal peace appealing? And again, you're equating scientific progress with failure, which is misleading.
Let me explain one more time.. if the science we believe in now is incomplete as you say, then it is not in fact correct and would be a weak source of evidence for people to rely to compare god with. in 100 yrs atomic physics will an old tale.
I agree that comparing god to science is a mistake. Theism is a narrative mythology relying on plot and character tropes to appeal to people across generations. Science is an equation for understanding the world around us. Apples and oranges.
How can you prove that god isn't real??
You can't, just like you can't prove Zeus isn't real. But the inability to disprove something, isn't proof of it's existence.
Hi M.T. And yes, it is because of that inability to prove/disprove god grounds for why atheist should not say assuredly that GOD IS NOT REAL. Because, that's just plain illogical to disprove what you can't prove. So again "How do u prove anything?"
You prove things based on perception in a shared reality. We both agree the sky is blue, an apple is edible, and ice is cold. These are determined by repeatable experiences from other people. God cannot pass this test.
M.T. you made an excellent point.
"You prove things based on (perception in a shared reality)."
The established "base" is a place where people are in (agreement). Without this "shared reality" no one can (logically) prove anything to anyone.
Yes my friend god can past those tests because people have shared perceptions about him.And i see that you've gone completely rudimentary to try and prove things but it is more than just a blue sky. When it gets more complex people start disagreeing
The perceptions of god are not shared. That's why one person can claim god hates gay people, and another can claim he doesn't. Your god always agrees with what you believe because you created him.
You said one person, you meant groups of persons; hence they share perceptions...Apart from that though, I'll be as basic as you were. All Christians believe that god is loving, made everything and is pretty much spiritual
Modern Christians believe god is loving. Christians of the past believed he was incredibly wrathful. He has changed to suit the needs of the time, which means he is neither consistent nor constant.
Umm actually your wrong there, read the david's psalms and research how many times the word love for god appears in the old testament. Much hasn't really changed. It is since Jesus came that the concept of mercy scaled hence why there is less wrath.
The presence of any wrath is a contradiction to the loving narrative. As are sanctions on slavery, sexism and homophobia. God can change with the times but the bible can't, which is why it's so often at odds with modern morality.
Oh my M.T That's really sad. Don't you know that god can be anything he wants HE IS GOD. How can you see that as a contradiction. you can love you son but have vengeance against those who would try to hurt him. WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION??????!!!!!
The contradiction is in the absolutes: all loving, all knowing, all good. A father can be loving and wrathful, but a father is human. The claim is that god is above humans and is perfect.
DING! DING! DING! DING! And that's where you're wrong My friend
After conversing with you for a while MT I realize that you perceptions of god are either self generated or just wrong. I encourage you to revisit the idea of the christian god
One theory is that what we see is a phenomenon and not real. We live in Maya or an illusionary world. In that sense your statement is true.
Remaining practical, I will tell you that a mango is succulent and sweet. Having tasted it, then you will understand what I was trying to say. So here we speak of experience.
There is another kind of proof which comes from Science, mathematics and astrology, etc. So recently, they told me in England, that an eclipse would happen in ten minutes, and then in ten minutes it not only happened, but the sky become very dark. Again the proof still lay in the experience.
I may tell you to take an antibiotic for a cold and suddenly, in a couple of days, you begin to feel better. While we're at it, I'm coming up with the answer of EXPERIENCE all the time. Same thing in the spiritual life. We need the experience ourselves, as miracles are not enough, and we soon forget them anyway.
The universe exists because you do. If you didn't, what does it matter anyway. The experience would belong to someone else. Peace.
Actually, that's a pretty good answer! But experiencing a scientifically reliable eclipse event is not quite the same as experiencing a subjective experience.
Sorry it took me so long to reply guys.....yes we are learning as time goes on through scientific experiences and so forth...But because we are a learning race we can't 100% really say what is real from what is not yet.
The only experience is when the Light of God is burning ceaselessly and constantly in your Heart. There will be no mental analysis then, and you willl understand Its play.
Okay.........Well it's nice to know that you believe in Christ too
I have followed you for a while, Dwight. You're a good man, and I tell friends that you're a good man. Thank you for the best answer. God bless your sincere heart.
by Claire Evans 2 years ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can only be proved to oneself and not by another?
by Retrohawaii 7 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 19 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by Earl S. Wynn 6 years ago
What is the best way for a Freemason to prove to doubters that Freemasonry is not evil?
by Antecessor 8 years ago
This thread is for the discussion of hubbers views on the origins of life and only on that subject. Please, if you wish to participate, pretend you are engaging in a debate. Make your statement, then back it up with evidence. If you cannot back something up with evidence, dont post it. No links to...
by SaiKit 8 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|