dogma:
First, let me say that whichever religious belief you hold is yours, and I do not presume to tell you what is right for you. Therefore, we do not argue doctrine, and we have mutual respect there.
Second, I notice that you have some concern that I haven't read your words carefully. I assure you I have. If there is a misunderstanding on my part, I apologize. However, my responses stand on their own merit, even if not directly addressing what you meant to be conveyed.
I think it is important to uphold the highest standards. That is the only way we can learn and progress.
Immediately, I disagree. First, I disagree that "highest standards" are the only way to learn and progress. I submit that theory may be the highest form of revelation. In fact, much progress comes from "wild theories" rather than strident and metered steps. Second, I seek clarification on "highest standards." What are they, and who sets the standard? Why is deviation from such standards an excuse to dismiss them? Only in terms of logic or mathematics do I think that highest standards has this basic merit; all other endeavors benefit from out-of-the-box thinking.
In so many ways, there are holes to this idea that nothing is assured unless it is proven so. Specifically, if existence cannot be proven, then no particle or portion therein may be proven either. Thus, it is "possible" to say that this is all a dream.
I really don't understand what this means. What is 'assurance'? Why must it be true that if 'existence cannot be proven, then no particle or portion therein may be proven either'. What has this got to do with the notion that our reality is but another being's dream?
Since you have asked, I will respond. (1) By "assured" I mean without logical dissent. For it is that dissent may be made, but without the "highest standard" of logic, such dissent is only so much noise. (2) If existence cannot be proven, it must be asked: Why not? If the problem is the whole of existence, in what way do we think that a particle or portion is actual and not imagined? I suppose one could
say that particles or portions are real but the entirety is not; but is this logical? If particles or portions are real, then at least some of the entirety is real; and, if some is real, why not all? But if no particles or portions are real, what of the entirety is real? None at all. I think this is simple enough but, if you require more, read John Locke. (3) Concerning reality as a dream, this was a device of mine to force you into more metaphysical thinking. The reason for this device is to show you a theory, that if existence is not real, nor any portion or particle, what then do we perceive except a fantasy? And, if a fantasy, a dream is a useful literary term to make this point. It was not meant to give you only two options, i.e., reality or dream, for (of course) there are other types of fantasy which may be posited. But my thrust is only that if existence is not real (actual, existent), what is this thing we call existence?
But the idea that lack of proof dissolves the basis for saying existence exists does not have legs.
How can this possibly be true?
If you have no proof, you cannot be certain of existence. Of course, you can still make assertions, you can still make justifications (and some will be more justified than others) but what you will not have is the certainty of proof.
I define "proof" as undeniable evidence. "Undeniable" must stand against all challenges. However, "undeniable" does not have to be mathematical. Instead, "greatest likelihood" is enough, as it is in jurisprudence. The challenge to this greatest likelihood can be mathematical, and I invite such a formula to overturn my assertions, which are based on probabilities (your definition of "probabilities" may differ).
But even if I had no such proof, the normal means by which existence may be perceived will overcome the faint dissent of absolutists.
If existence or non-existence are not able to be tested, it means they are possible, even probable, not the opposite. For without proof, you cannot say it does or does not exist. Therefore, we flop to what is probable, not improbable.
Again, I don't know what this means.
Since you have asked: If existence is not able to be proven, it does not follow that non-existence is most probable. Non-existence is as likely to be an incorrect assumption as existence in this way of thinking. Therefore, if both are equally unlikely to be true by this way of thinking, we must think differently to break the tie. We may then introduce other evidence which is observational, logical, and statistical, as I have done.
If you wish to say this is incorrect, you must first explain how it is that the unlikelihood of both existence and non-existence is unequal.
And existence is observable, whether you say it colloquially ("I see it"), philosophically ("I think, therefore I am"), or meta-scientifically ("reality is formed by observation").
Cogito ergo sum has its detractors, and it most certainly is not the case that just because we are observing something, we know its existence.
There was an interesting bit of research done by the BBC and the UK police about how memory is infallible (there is a much more recent version but I suck at searching because I can't find it. But this covers the same stuff). It raises questions about what value can you place on observation (this is a contrived example, I admit, but I think valid).
Making the leap between observing something and making statements about its existence... no. Don't get it, and you'd be hard pressed to find philosophers who would consider the matter agreed.
The "observation creates reality" line which I used is a distillation of quantum mechanics (not all, naturally, just "down the rabbit hole" type). True, philosophers do not agree with this, and neither do I. My purpose for including it was only to show that esteemed parties from various quarters consider existence to be real.
Probabilities do have much value, and your statement that they have less is your assumption only, and not based on anything, much less proof.
What? This makes no sense. Probabilities may 'have value', but that is short of irrefutable proof. We are looking for proof, not plausibilities.
It is an error to equate "plausibility" with "probability." You have diminished "probability" to "possibility."
Probabilities govern every aspect of the physical world, as well as our motivations and reactions. Probabilities are not only valid but also may be considered "proof."
Besides, the name of this thread is not "Is there proof of God?" but "Is there such a thing as God?" That latter question itself is asking for a probability ("such a thing as") not proof. But I submit that I have provided proof in the method of "greatest likelihood" - and, to overturn this, you must still explain how this universe is not the greatest Pokemon deck ever created but a lucksack (see my previous posts).
You want tangible proof of existence, but there are many things not tangible (thoughts, personalities, etc) which people take for granted as existent simply because the effects of them are observable. Do you also deny that effects exist?
I do not want 'tangible' proof. I want proof. As long as it is a proof, I don't care what shape it takes!
Then you must define "proof," for I say that I have given you both undeniable evidence, greatest likelihood, and irrefutable logic. If these things do not satisfy, I think you still must refute what I previously offered before you can say it is not "proof."
Do I deny effects 'exist'? Hmmm. I deny that you can prove effects exist, if that answers your question.
It does not. I did not ask if you believed I can prove effects, only if you denied their existence. If you do not deny, then a particle or potion of existence is proved
to you because you believe it
. You may call this "faith" if you like, but I would also ask if you believe effects exist because you have some evidence or simply because you have no reason to reject their existence. If the first, the evidence is convincing. If the latter, then you have no evidence and have faith only. Now, if evidence convinced you and can furthermore withstand all challenges, you have "proof." The only question is, are you willing to make your theory, find your evidence, and accept all challenges? If not, you have faith only. If yes, you are seeking truth. Then, if you meet with a stronger argument but refuse to change, you have faith only. But if you meet with no stronger argument, you have proof.
This is my method of testing evidence, and I think it is also the scientific method. Therefore, I stand by my evidence as proof and not faith, for I have allowed all arguments to come against my evidence. But if someone can show me where I've gone wrong, and it is undeniable, I will change my belief. For I wish my faith to have the strongest possible foundation of truth, which is the undeniable evidence of which I speak.
No, I really am not contradicting myself. My assertion was that it is impossible to get absolute proof of existence (or otherwise) of God. Because you disagree with me, it follows that your assertion is that such a proof is possible.
You go on to say that I am ignoring all manner of evidence, from probabilistic arguments, to observation. Of course I am. Because these things do not constitute proof. I haven't said they aren't useful, I am only saying you cannot claim that God is proven to exist/not exist on the basis of what we can observe.
Because you choose to ignore evidence, you are not seeking truth. I say this strongly because your beliefs ought to be grounded in the undeniable. But "undeniable" does not mean that every loose denial is a true challenge. You have arbitrarily decided that probabilities do not constitute strong enough evidence to build a case of proof (but, as to observation, I agree somewhat with your statement, but not if such observations are able to be repeated, as in the scientific method).
But if you say that "proof" is a mathematical formula with various Greek symbols, you are correct: you will receive no proof. But if you accept that proof is not as you define it, you will find other worlds open to you which have the capacity to provide the proof you seek, even the relative surety of "greatest probability."
How do you say these things? Once you begin by stating that nothing may be phrased in absolutes, especially as it concerns God, you have disqualified yourself from having credibility in stating absolutes.
I can say these things because of logic.
Is this fair to invoke logic after you have made logic to be not indisputable proof? But since I believe in logic as proof, I will allow it
Note that I start off with a conditional statement. If you believe in an Abrahamic religion, then by definition you believe that miracles exist. These miracles cannot be explained by science, hence some sort of creator of these miracles exists.
But note the 'if'. If you don't follow an Abrahamic religion, then you can ignore the rest, because it can't apply to you!
I agree with you that the miracles are true, but can you ignore them? Ignoring evidence is darkness, not enlightenment. Any science which does not care to explain that which is anomaly is not to be trusted.
But, looking at your statement anyway, you are incorrect. A "miracle" is not necessarily as you have defined it, nor can it be said that such things do not happen continuously. I submit that the constancy of molecular biology is a miracle and not a "law" at all (except that the Creator has created it).
We are defining 'miracles' differently here. I am using the conventional use of the word. I think its fairly clear what a miracle is. For instance, Jesus feeding the masses, or Moses with the snake, or Abraham being unharmed by the fire, or Muhammad (pbuh) going up into the heavens. Those are all miracles.
In order to make your point, you have deliberately limited the scope of what a miracle is. This dilutes your message, even if it is only regarding faith. I find it interesting that you allow for the greatest miracles but not for the greatest probability.
OK, you are right, I was being flippant. But note one thing. I never set out to prove any assertion. If I wanted to prove you are not exceptionally clever, I would have to conclusively demonstrate that to be the case. If you want to prove the existence of God, you have to conclusively demonstrate that to be the case.
First, thank you. It's refreshing to find an admission of mischief. Second, if you wished to prove me not clever, it would not be difficult. However, being clever was not my standard for what I do, but yours. I am not being clever, only logical. Third, proving that I am not clever is not the same as proving that God exists or not. I am corporeal, God is not. I make errors, God does not.
Now, if we apply this same choice as a standard to deciding whether your statement has validity, I am afraid you must also fail. Thus, your statement is not only unwilling, but also contradictory.
See above. I agree that this does not constitute proof. Apologies if it came across that way.
Again, thanks.
Probabilities is not only an accepted branch of mathematics and science, it is now considered to be the most rational method by which we can even examine reality.
What? It really is not considered to be the most rational method by which we can even examine reality. Where did you get that from?
(And belief is not proof. That is my point. I believe in God. I cannot prove that he exists.)
When I say "considered to be," I mean by those who are most against the belief in God. This does not mean that you or I believe this to be the "most rational method," only that it is undeniable that many physicists and other men of science use probabilities as the main way to examine reality.
But if you are surprised that I've given them their due, that is how I roll.
Likewise, God is not a formula, He is likely, and the likeliest of all things (as I have shown).
Sorry. You really haven't. You have not proved that he is the likeliest of all things.
Then you haven't read anything I've written. Your offhand denial is not a challenge to my evidence.
You said: "Science works by empirical evidence. The rise of statistics has helped in that a lot, but also has caused a lot of confusion. 'Statistical superiority' cannot be a substitute for a proof, no matter how good your results are."
This is incorrect. First, science has proven that probabilities work exceptionally well, and human progress has advanced exponentially by such assumptions. Second, science "works" not by evidence but because it works; "evidence" is only our observation of what works. Third, "statistical superiority" is not only logical but empirical, if no better argument can be made. Which.. is.. why.. Hawking.. is.. frustrated.
Can't add anything to this except I disagree with your conclusion, based on my reasoning above.
I am disappointed that you have not placed a better challenge than merely to reject.
Your knowledge is not forthcoming because you have objected to the concept of "greatest likelihood." But your faith in God is not only contradictory to your demand, but also to your statements of conclusion - examine this.
No. If someone says they have proved existence of God, I demand absolute irrevocable proof. If someone believes in God, I'm like great, so do I, and leave it at that. No contradiction at all. I accept that my faith is irrational, by definition. Doesn't mean I can't believe in God.
I did not say that one who demands proof has no right to believe as they wish. But how can one profess pure faith and then not accept "greatest likelihood" as undeniable?
Whew! That was long. I don't mean the above as singling you out - I imagine lots of people share your views. I ask only that you use your words carefully and have respect for the importance of the topics we are discussing.
I hope I have given you the clarifications you sought. I seek now better answers than I have provided. But they must withstand my challenges in return.
__________________
