Proof?

[Morallyangelic]

certainly. Much religious belief is based on alleged "proofs" with no tangible evidence. Christian religionists have fought (sometimes literally) for centuries over dogmas and doctrines (the Trinity, for example) that have no tangible evidence, merely a few textual references in the translation of an edited copy of a book that most of them could not even read in its original language. Yet they consider their side of the argument to have more than ample "proof" to justify their position.

But is that really proof? Or evidence?

 

[five]

Just want to throw a few questions out there to get some opinions.

So my first question is this : Can lack of proof act as proof for the opposing argument?

And secondly: Does ' proof ' mean different things to different people or is there a standard on what acceptable proof is? Does proof have to be 100% tangible in all cases where proof is needed? If not can you give me an example or an analogy?

Thanks everyone.

1. No.
2. Some would say that there's no such thing as proof, only evidence.

 

[Zakath]

But is that really proof? Or evidence?

Proof or evidence of what?

For True Believers™ evidence isn't all that important, since "faith" is the be all and end all. Their appeals to evidence tend to be a bit vague and often, when closely examined, the evidence isn't very convincing.

 

[Morallyangelic]

Proof or evidence of what?

For True Believers™ evidence isn't all that important, since "faith" is the be all and end all. Their appeals to evidence tend to be a bit vague and often, when closely examined, the evidence isn't very convincing.

That their deity exsists or that what they believe is true?

 

[in2Nas]

So my first question is this : Can lack of proof act as proof for the opposing argument?

And secondly: Does ' proof ' mean different things to different people or is there a standard on what acceptable proof is? Does proof have to be 100% tangible in all cases where proof is needed? If not can you give me an example or an analogy?

IMO, no. I get beat up on this quite a bit and arguing this seems more like playing symantics than anything. Anyways, if someone is trying to prove to me something exists, then they need proof. A blanket statement like "You can't prove there wasn't an elephant in my garage, so how do you it wasn't there?" is irrelevant. The chance of one being there is slim to none for one, and it's the claimer trying to justify his belief that needs proof.

 

[xAtheistx]

Well yes. But the fact is there are certain things we would expect to see if there had been an elephant in the garage for any length of time. If we don't see them then that is evidence against the idea that there was an elephant in the garage. Does it prove that there was never an elephant in the garage beyond all doubt? No. Does it count as evidence against it? I think it does.

Maybe the person who owned the garage was very good at cleaning house.

Why? Do you think that you have a troll standing on your head? And even if you did think that, why would I want to prove you wrong? If it makes you happy to believe that you have a troll standing on your head then bully for you.

It does make me think you're a bit weird though!

Suppose you desired to prove me wrong. You think I'm nuts for thinking there's a troll on my head, and you want to prove it...
The point is, you really *can't* very well... and you would have to disprove that there is also anything else that I think may be standing on my head... but wouldn't it make sense if I had to prove they were standing on my head first?

But what could Bob use as proof for an elephant being in the garage without an actual elephant?

Providing evidence is considered to be working towards a proof. A photograph would do nicely, especially if he was in it. And aforementioned trampled vehicles.

If those things could serve as proof FOR an elephant, how can it not be proof that there wasn't an elephant if those things were not in the garage?

I guess another good question would be is are we using proof in the same sense that we would use the word ' fact ' or ' know ' ?

The elephant wouldn't necessarily sit on on his car--he wouldn't necessarily take a picture of it--it wouldn't have to squish his bike. For example, perhaps he moved those in after the elephant came. Did he? Dunno. But it's not evidence that the elephant wasn't there.

So there is no 100% answer on what proof is then? It just depends on who you ask?

There is no 100% certainty of anything in life. Not of your deity's existance, not of your own existance, not that we're having this conversation.

You can say that it's 100% certainty, but your 100% is relative to your point of view--you've never been more certain of anything in your life, therefore it is 100% certain from your perspective.

Everything is relative... just ask my old buddy Al. (Theory of relativity)

Proof is a flexible word, if that's what you're asking. Proof is in the eye of the beholder (as is beauty, sensibility [that don't make no sense at all], intelligence [for example, the subject material is important. A mechanic would think I am stupid because I know nothing about cars, or the like... but ask my old History professor how smart I am, you'll get a different answer] ... etc)

A mathetmatical proof is a series of logical steps using definitions and understood concepts to get from point A (we have a right triangle with a hypotenuse of 5 and a leg of 4) to point B (the third leg is 3)

 

[xAtheistx]

IMO ... it's the claimer trying to justify his belief that needs proof.

So you believe the burden of proof as far as religion is concerned, rests on you.

 

[in2Nas]

So you believe the burden of proof as far as religion is concerned, rests on you.

Unfortunately yes. There are many in religion I argue against, based off of lack of proof to include "absolute truth", the Book of Genesis and among other things. I usually have my work cut out for me, sometimes arguing for and against both sides.

 

[xAtheistx]

I usually have my work cut out for me, sometimes arguing for and against both sides.

A Christian? The devil's advocate? Nevar...

 

[in2Nas]

A Christian? The devil's advocate? Nevar...

Not everything in this world is black or white. Regardless of what has been taught to you or how you raised, you should always think outside of the box.

 

[TheGMan]

Maybe the person who owned the garage was very good at cleaning house.

But you now have to start finding excuses as to why the evidence we would expect to see isn't there (the garage has been cleaned). So your original story gets more and more elaborate in order to try to explain the discrepancy with the evidence (then why doesn't it smell of bleach?). And if you're a reasonable person at some point you'll decide the original story has become far too much trouble and realise you were mistaken about the elephant.

Suppose you desired to prove me wrong. You think I'm nuts for thinking there's a troll on my head, and you want to prove it...
The point is, you really *can't* very well... and you would have to disprove that there is also anything else that I think may be standing on my head... but wouldn't it make sense if I had to prove they were standing on my head first?

Well as far as I'm concerned, yes, unless you prove that there's a troll on your head then I'm not going to believe it. But you are already convinced that there's a troll on your head so unless I prove to you that there isn't then you're going to carry on believing that there is.

Trying to claim that there is some sort of default assumption just doesn't work in practice. Invariably the default assumption that you think that everyone should make is the one that you've already made yourself. Which is just rather unconvincing really.

 

[KhaTzek]

You can prove that something doesnt exist, if two properties of it are mutually exclusive or logically contradictory. For example, if one said "I have a ball of the element lead, that is entirely made of aluminum," then by definition, it can not exist. At least not in anything but a metaphysical sense

 

[xAtheistx]

But you now have to start finding excuses as to why the evidence we would expect to see isn't there (the garage has been cleaned). So your original story gets more and more elaborate in order to try to explain the discrepancy with the evidence (then why doesn't it smell of bleach?). And if you're a reasonable person at some point you'll decide the original story has become far too much trouble and realise you were mistaken about the elephant.

This is not an absence of evidence, it's evidence of absense. "The car is in perfect condition; there must not have been an elephant through here. " NOT "there is no evidence of an elephant coming through here, therefore no elephant came through here."

Trying to claim that there is some sort of default assumption just doesn't work in practice. Invariably the default assumption that you think that everyone should make is the one that you've already made yourself. Which is just rather unconvincing really.

Always assume in the negative. If sufficient proof is provided otherwise (e.g. smashed car) it is concievable that you would change your viewpoint.

 

[TheGMan]

This is not an absence of evidence, it's evidence of absense. "The car is in perfect condition; there must not have been an elephant through here. " NOT "there is no evidence of an elephant coming through here, therefore no elephant came through here."

Well, it's quite a minor semantic distinction. I don't think it invalidates the idea that absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence. You'd actually have to try quite hard to find a situation where there really wasn't any evidence one way or the other.

Always assume in the negative. If sufficient proof is provided otherwise (e.g. smashed car) it is concievable that you would change your viewpoint.

Well sure that's one way of doing it. But in practice not everybody does assume the same default.

 

[KhaTzek]

Well sure that's one way of doing it. But in practice not everybody does assume the same default.

There are three basic ways that you can go as far default beliefs go:
1) assume the negative
2) wait for more evidence before forming an opinion
3) assume the positive

While the first two are different from a philosophical standpoint, pragmatically it makes no difference to their actions, as you do not base your actions on a belief that you have no opinion for.

The last one is not particularly a wise position to take: anyone can tell you any sort of crap they want, and you will assume it is all true. In other words, you will be a gullible fool.

 

[TheGMan]

The last one is not particularly a wise position to take: anyone can tell you any sort of crap they want, and you will assume it is all true. In other words, you will be a gullible fool.

I don't think I ever claimed it was wise but undoubtedly people do it - at least some of the time.

Sometimes it's quite sensible to do it as well. I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make out. If somebody tells you that they dropped strychnine in your coffee you probably shouldn't wait for proof before calling an ambulance.