Proof Of Existence/Occurrence

Logical Challenger · #1 19th January 2004, 05:39 AM

Proof Of Existence

The existence of any given entity assuming its definition is not self-contradictory can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of that entity. To put that another way:

The non-existence of any given entity can always be conclusively disproved by producing one single instance of the entity said not to exist.

The non-existence of any given entity can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the entity exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

This deduces that there is only one out of the two possible statements we can make about the existence of any given entity:

The given entity exists.
It is unknown if the given entity exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that the given entity does not exist without further qualifying criteria.

The source of scientific evidence to determine the existence of any given entitiy is the interaction of such entity with reality. If an entity does not exist. It can not interact with reality. Hence, no evidence can be produced.

Note that if the interaction between an entity and reality can be neither measured, observed or evidented, it is equivalent to non-existent.

From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from one who claims that entity exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

Please note that it is possible to prove the inexistence of some entities (i.e. a specifically defined god, or a cube-sphere) using the Law Of Non-Contradiction.

Proof Of Occurrence

Proof of an event occurrence is somewhat different. It can not be proved conclusively that any particular event has or has not occurred but the probability of an event occurring can be estimated depending on the Strength Of The Evidence:

The volume of evidence
The quality of evidence.
The probability of the evidence being caused by a different event.
Independent witness corroboration.

For example:

Event 1 - President Kennedy was assassinated

Many witnesses, Televised, A Body, Bullet wounds.
Precise forensic evidence of cause of death, ballistics evidence linked to murder weapon. Assassin's confession.
Low. Accidental firearm discharge unlikely because of multiple hits on target, suicide unlikely because no powder burns, no weapon found near victim. Mistaken identity or wrong target unlikely . . .
Excellent, Directly seen by hundreds, Indirectly seen by millions.

Event 2: - A talking snake convinced a genetically engineered female to eat an apple that caused her to gain knowledge of good and evil

Contained only in one book (Genesis) of uncertain origin.
Very poor, Snakes have no physical means of talking, the interpretation of Genesis is disputed among christians, the eating of apples does not cause knowledge to be gained. Serious technical difficulties in remainder of this book. Contradicts accounts from other religions.
Very High, More likely to have been an illustrative or metaphorical event rather than a literal event.
No witnesses.

There is a very high probability that Event 1 occurred, literally, as stated.
There is a very low probability that Event 2 occurred, literally, as stated.

It is not possible to prove or disprove the occurrence of an event, you can only argue for the probability of it's occurrence.

Christians say Genesis occured. The evidence indicates otherwise and relies on the existance of a specific god, which has not been proven.

The above statements are not absolute, many alternative hypotheses exist as to the nature of existence, perception and reality.

Burden Of Proof

Humans are born with the lack of belief in any given entity/event. Hence, the lack of belief is the default position.

In any given debate, the burden is on the one who is making the claim. If a claimant cannot provide that proof, then the default position of disbelief is justified.

We can see this principle expressed in the United States justice system where accused criminals are innocent until proven guilty (innocence is the default position) and the prosecutor has the burden of proving the criminal claims.

__________________

Philosophy - Questions that cannot be answered
Religion - Answers that cannot be questioned

seebs · #2 19th January 2004, 05:46 AM

Your position here runs into a few quirks.

The most important observation is that, in fact, the "burden of proof" is more complicated than you think it is. As a general rule, the meaningful burden of proof in discussion is "if you want to change my mind, you have to convince me".

The comparison with the justice system is, frankly, a lost cause. First off, there are many exceptions. Secondly, in many cases, you can find scenarios where the defendant must prove innocence affirmatively. Thirdly, the justice system is intentionally biased towards falsely finding guilty parties innocent. The goal of the criminal justice system is not to find the truth, but to minimize the number of innocent people punished.

I do not entirely agree that lack of belief is a default. Rocks have lack of belief, but we don't generally call them atheists. It is hard to be sure, but it seems quite likely that some people, in the process of forming the capacity to understand the question, answer it in the affirmative. For the most part, people do not stumble across some external concept and look for proof or disproof; rather, they observe the world, and theorize about it, and they may end up theorizing an entity which looks enough like "God" that they recognize it when they hear descriptions given.

However... Most important of all: I have personal experience which convinces me, so I'm convinced. You don't, so you're not. There is no burden of proof until one of us tries to convince the other. It seems vanishingly unlikely that this will happen. We're done. No one owes anyone anything.

Also, I would point out that your claim about Genesis is a gross overgeneralization, and refers to a minority of Christians worldwide. Perhaps a poor example.

I'd be interested in discussing these issues further. However, I would suggest that you may want to look further into epistemology; you're about to hit foundational questions which have stayed interesting for a couple thousand years, and, based on my own experience, I suspect you'll find them a lot more tractable if you read up on them first.

Logical Challenger · #3 19th January 2004, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by seebs

The most important observation is that, in fact, the "burden of proof" is more complicated than you think it is. As a general rule, the meaningful burden of proof in discussion is "if you want to change my mind, you have to convince me".

This is strictly not true. In some cases no specific side of the argument has the burden. But a debate where the default position can be established, the burden is the side claiming the contrary to the default position.

Originally Posted by seebs

I do not entirely agree that lack of belief is a default. Rocks have lack of belief, but we don't generally call them atheists.

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.

Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).

To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.

To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged

Here is Webster's definition of atheism:

atheism n 1 a : disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b : the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2 : godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n : the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief

Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.

So a rock would officially be classified as a weak atheist. Usually the concept is applied to humans and not objects incapable of reasoning. Humans are are born with the lack of belief, and hence it is the default position.

Originally Posted by seebs

It is hard to be sure, but it seems quite likely that some people, in the process of forming the capacity to understand the question, answer it in the affirmative. For the most part, people do not stumble across some external concept and look for proof or disproof; rather, they observe the world, and theorize about it, and they may end up theorizing an entity which looks enough like "God" that they recognize it when they hear descriptions given.

The burden of poof is what is usually applied in a debate. When there is no debate, the concept of burden does not exist. One may derive his/her own conclusions. But if one is to participate in a debate to argue for his/her claim. If it is not the default position, one has the burden of proof it. This is similar to scientists who have derived their own theories. When the theories are presented to the scientific comnunity, they have the burden of proof.

__________________

Nobody's perfect
I am a nobody
Therefore
I am perfect

Vegan Charity · #4 19th January 2004, 07:09 AM

First, very nice post, Logical Challenger.

Second, I am going to address a few things:

Immediately, I should address the question "Are rocks atheists". Usually, when labeling things, people make a few implicit unstated axioms, but most of the time these axioms do not need to be stated as they are commonsense. One of the axioms in "Are rocks atheists" is:
In defining something as being an atheist, it should be assumed that whatever is being defined has the capacity to hold beliefs.

In that case, the question "Are rocks atheists" is irrelevant because rocks do not have the capacity to hold any tenets of atheism.

To illustrate this, consider the question "Are rocks homosexuals". For the reason above (being that rocks do not have the capacity to facilitate homosexuality), the question is irrelevant.

Now, on to the definition of Atheism (logically, the definition should be placed nearer toward the top of the post, but I'm the one writing it, not so, so there *sticks out tongue*):

Short and sweet, atheism simply means "the absence or rejection of theism".

I dont like some of the dictionary definitions because they extend definitions to include things like "immorality". I consider that to be a "metaphorical definition" (unless of course you would call Christians who do immoral things atheists

).

Now for the burden of proof:

First, you have to define what kind of debate you are having. The two most common types of debate are:
1. Philosophical/Ethical Debate - These debates are concerned with establishing principles of moral correctness and/or unfalsifyable claims. Logic is what advances these debates. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
2. Scientific debate - These debates are concerned with establishing the truth or falsity of falsifyable claims. Empirical evidence and science is what drives these debates. There is no burden of proof for either side, the evidence is what determines what is true or not.

Its important to refrain from mixing your Philosophy with your Science when having a debate.

About that "Guilty until proven Innocent" syllogism, I doubt the parallelism between the Justice system is very consistent with that of Philosophical or Scientific debates. (i.e. Not a good analogy).

For the people who want to say evidence comes through self-verification, I think its important to note that the easiest person to fool is always yourself. Always be weary of a phenomena called "Self-Deception", and never "personal verification" as a justification for your beliefs.

seebs · #5 19th January 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Logical Challenger

This is strictly not true. In some cases no specific side of the argument has the burden. But a debate where the default position can be established, the burden is the side claiming the contrary to the default position.

The only time we can establish a "default position" is when there is general consensus - everyone agrees, so that becomes the default position. There's no inherent rule for defaults, although people have tried to invent rules which appeared to explain observed behavior before.

So a rock would officially be classified as a weak atheist. Usually the concept is applied to humans and not objects incapable of reasoning. Humans are are born with the lack of belief, and hence it is the default position.

Most people would not classify a rock as a weak atheist. Implicit in any discussion of belief is the capacity for such belief.

The burden of poof is what is usually applied in a debate. When there is no debate, the concept of burden does not exist. One may derive his/her own conclusions. But if one is to participate in a debate to argue for his/her claim. If it is not the default position, one has the burden of proof it. This is similar to scientists who have derived their own theories. When the theories are presented to the scientific comnunity, they have the burden of proof.

Exactly my point; what bears the burden of proof is a change to the status quo.

In cases where the community is split, there is no meaningful default position.

Furthermore, who gets to decide whether or not the burden of proof is met? Consider two people, one of whom believes in God, one of whom does not. I approach them, and I tell them that I've seen a miracle! I prayed for something to happen, and IT HAPPENED!

Have I met the burden of proof? They may disagree.

If there is an objective standard, we don't know what it is. We all have our own opinions on this issue.

To put it another way:

It seems pretty clear that we are born without any concept of "burden of proof" or "default claims". Your model dictates that I should expect you to prove that your model is correct. I'll wait.

ThePhoenix · #6 19th January 2004, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Logical Challenger

Event 1 - President Kennedy was assassinated

Many witnesses, Televised, A Body, Bullet wounds.

Precise forensic evidence of cause of death, ballistics evidence linked to murder weapon. Assassin's confession.

Low. Accidental firearm discharge unlikely because of multiple hits on target, suicide unlikely because no powder burns, no weapon found near victim. Mistaken identity or wrong target unlikely . . .

Excellent, Directly seen by hundreds, Indirectly seen by millions.

Um, sorry, do you know ANYTHING ABOUT THE ASSASINATION? The autopsy was done by a doctor not qualified to do autopsies, Oswald maintained his innocence until he was shot, the witnesses claimed that the fire was coming from the hill, the tape has 4 gunshots, one which comes .4 seconds after the other, impossible for a bolt action rifle, the firearm Oswald was using was really really bad, just what a poor stupid example to use.

Alenci · #7 19th January 2004, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Logical Challenger

Event 2: - A talking snake convinced a genetically engineered female to eat an apple that caused her to gain knowledge of good and evil
Contained only in one book (Genesis) of uncertain origin.

Very poor, Snakes have no physical means of talking, the interpretation of Genesis is disputed among christians, the eating of apples does not cause knowledge to be gained. Serious technical difficulties in remainder of this book. Contradicts accounts from other religions.

Very High, More likely to have been an illustrative or metaphorical event rather than a literal event.

No witnesses.

Um, sorry, do you know ANYTHING ABOUT THE BOOK OF GENESIS?

Obviously your description of the fruit as an apple is either indicative of A) a sarcastic and disrespectful attitude towards Biblical literature or B) personal misperceptions regarding this story, stemming from exposure to popular depictions of Eve's fall in the absence of a detailed reading of Genesis.

You're either hateful or ignorant. Either way, you're offensive.

toff · #8 19th January 2004, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Alenci

[/list]Um, sorry, do you know ANYTHING ABOUT THE BOOK OF GENESIS?

Obviously your description of the fruit as an apple is either indicative of A) a sarcastic and disrespectful attitude towards Biblical literature or B) personal misperceptions regarding this story, stemming from exposure to popular depictions of Eve's fall in the absence of a detailed reading of Genesis.

You're either hateful or ignorant. Either way, you're offensive.

Great post. Almost as stupid as the Kennedy post above it. He was giving examples of things for which we have varying degrees of evidence. Is this concept beyond you?

Alenci · #9 20th January 2004, 05:30 PM

No, but I didn't feel like overlooking that particular detail. It bugged me. I was registering a complaint against his attitude problem.

His error in detail did not detract from the ultimate value of his example in demonstrating that an event with little or no supporting evidence or eyewitness testimony is less credible than one with a good deal of evidence for it. Less likely to have occurred? Now how he makes that assumption, I wish I knew. Every day events occur in the world that no one has observed, measured, recorded, or in any way taken notice of.

Just a point. Btw, if you are curious, I don't take the story literally either. I just derive entertainment from questioning individuals' logic.

toff · #10 20th January 2004, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Alenci

No, but I didn't feel like overlooking that particular detail. It bugged me. I was registering a complaint against his attitude problem.

His error in detail did not detract from the ultimate value of his example in demonstrating that an event with little or no supporting evidence or eyewitness testimony is less credible than one with a good deal of evidence for it. Less likely to have occurred? Now how he makes that assumption, I wish I knew. Every day events occur in the world that no one has observed, measured, recorded, or in any way taken notice of.

Just a point. Btw, if you are curious, I don't take the story literally either. I just derive entertainment from questioning individuals' logic.

You are bugged by references to the fruit eaten by adam and eve as an apple? You must go insane...it's quite common. So far, the only 'attitude' i've noticed is yours.