Why ask for proof and evidence?

[ManTimeForgot]

Might want to educate yourself a little then.

Um... Jar I think he is suggesting that if evidence of God could be produced, then this being wouldn't be God as it would not be a transcendent being anymore. I could be reading into it, but that is the impression I gathered.

MTF

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure how a person can produce evidence. God wouldn't be God

How so?

Um... Jar I think he is suggesting that if evidence of God could be produced, then this being wouldn't be God as it would not be a transcendent being anymore. I could be reading into it, but that is the impression I gathered.

MTF

Could you step us through the logic of this if/then statement? How does "evidence for 'X' exists" imply "'X' is not transcendent"?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Um... Jar I think he is suggesting that if evidence of God could be produced, then this being wouldn't be God as it would not be a transcendent being anymore. I could be reading into it, but that is the impression I gathered.

MTF

Ok... I might be missing something.
His English isn't exactly stellar.
BUT, if he indicated that NO-ONE can produce any evidence AT ALL, then he is in need of an education.

 

[9Westy9]

Not sure how a person can produce evidence. God wouldn't be God

Only if your definition of God includes "unprovable". Mine doesn't

 

[ManTimeForgot]

How so?


Could you step us through the logic of this if/then statement? How does "evidence for 'X' exists" imply "'X' is not transcendent"?

Transcendent- The definition of which is to exceed the scope of a given system. So one might say that infinity transcends the number system because it is too broad or large or varied (however you wish to term and whichever aspect you wish to emphasize) that number theory does not properly contain it. It can be used like a number in many situations but any attempt at quantifying its exact value fails.

Transcending reality (Prime Mover; Ultimate Cause; God; Absolute; etc) means to exceed the scope of reality and that includes everything governed by reality. If you found evidence of this thing inside reality, then it wouldn't be transcending reality; it would have to have some sort of mundane explanation. You might see the consequence of this things agency (technically everything that exists would be a consequence of its agency though), but you would never be able to locate or positively identify the influence or agency of this thing.

Technically a Transcendent "entity" cannot properly be said to exist, since it exceeds the scope of existing. So "God" does not exist is true no matter whether or not an agency attributable to "God" is a fact.


Edit: This might still be unclear so I will try to elucidate. Transcendence must exceed all values or qualities to exceed the scope of existence. So if you located its direct interaction, then that would mean that one of its aspects was directly correlated (i.e. comprehensible) in terms of reality. This would negate any claim to generalized transcendence.


With that said I have an extreme aversion to any attempt at personalizing or anthropomophizing such a being, since it technically can't even be called a "being." And I also don't particularly care for its possible "influence" if it were in direct contact with reality. I have no particular desire to find out what would happen if all truth values were simultaneously set to false or what would happen if reality was not equal to itself. I think restricting one's definition of "God" to Transcendence (generalized) is a technically valid move (I dislike the fact that there are like 39 different definitions for "God"), but I don't think that if there is a "God" that that is the most likely candidate.



Jar:

Granted his statements don't exactly wax verbose, nor are they particularly powerful in terms of expressive power, but I think that we would all know if his first statement was meant to be taken in isolation and without qualification. Not being able to produce any evidence of anything at all ever no matter who you are or where you are... well that sounds beyond ludicrous. That's not merely in need of an education; it's in need of... I'm not sure there is a word strong enough to convey what is needed. I doubt psychiatric treatment is strong enough to handle the problem of your world view corresponding most strongly with the notion that "existence is impossible to understand, ergo I understand nothing." So, I would suggest that the phrase "God would not be God" is critical to understanding the intended message.

MTF

 

[stegthomson]

proof is evidence!

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Ok... I might be missing something.
His English isn't exactly stellar.
BUT, if he indicated that NO-ONE can produce any evidence AT ALL, then he is in need of an education.

That depends on the society's standards by which we judge education.

 

[Photonic]

That depends on the society's standards by which we judge education.

A societies standards of education are an incredibly bad way to measure how effective it is.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That depends on the society's standards by which we judge education.

That sounds terribly arbitrary don't you think?
I mean, we have had all kinds of societies, and still do, and yet, there seems to be some things that we over time have decided are less than useful, wouldn't you agree?
Also, all societies are not created equally. Some are clearly more successful than others, and this is no accident.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

proof is evidence!

Rubbish. Evidence is that which serves to make evident. Proof is a measure of alcohol content.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

proof is evidence!

If something existed in the empirical world that actually constituted a proof, then you might be right; it would be the absolute form of evidence. However, since no such thing actually exists outside of systems that limit the nature of its actors or contents, then you can't actually make any statement about "proofs" as they relate to our world.

I may be firmly convinced that you exist, but I don't actually have any proof of this. Your response could have been generated by a trollbot or you could be a figment of my imagination (the former being slightly more likely the latter is a given ).

MTF

 

[heretic]

Transcendent- The definition of which is to exceed the scope of a given system. So one might say that infinity transcends the number system because it is too broad or large or varied (however you wish to term and whichever aspect you wish to emphasize) that number theory does not properly contain it. It can be used like a number in many situations but any attempt at quantifying its exact value fails.

Infinity is within the scope of the number system ,but we need eternity to realize it, the problem is that we are not aware of what eternity is as we are not aware of many intangible things ,this doesn't prove that infinity does not exists. however we could imagine or symbolize it's existence to be handled with our minds.

I posted this before somewhere as another example .we all know the imaginary number i=sqrt(-1) , which mathematically impossible because -1 * -1 = 1 , but does it's influence really exist ?,the answer is yes it does ,physics , atomic engineering and many practical equations -in aircraft constructions for example - were not be possible without i .

what I want to say is we cannot cancel the existence of something because we cannot sense or experiment it ,otherwise we make a process of abstraction ,by proving it's influence ,represent it in words , symbols, .. and handle it with our minds , senses and may be souls

Transcending reality (Prime Mover; Ultimate Cause; God; Absolute; etc) means to exceed the scope of reality and that includes everything governed by reality. If you found evidence of this thing inside reality, then it wouldn't be transcending reality; it would have to have some sort of mundane explanation. You might see the consequence of this things agency (technically everything that exists would be a consequence of its agency though), but you would never be able to locate or positively identify the influence or agency of this thing.

You should define first what reality is , reality scoped with our senses ? Or experiment-able with our labs and sciences ?
Reality relative to the human's intellectual and sciences could be very misleading , many things were proved to be real , lately had many question marks , for example the evolution theory which is used now as a proof of God non existence , some thought that it's proved by fossils , geology ,others .. , but DNA when discovered raised many questions , and put the evolution theory under investigation again.
The tough fact that many people built their belief that God existence (which is a major issue in the human life) is not true, on the evolution theory .
Now suppose (I don't intend to talk about it now , let it for their threads) that evolution is false , this consequently destroys what many people believe.
I don't think it's valid (for me at least) to base our convictions on incomplete , limited ,changing , doubtful scientific facts

Technically a Transcendent "entity" cannot properly be said to exist, since it exceeds the scope of existing. So "God" does not exist is true no matter whether or not an agency attributable to "God" is a fact.

Edit: This might still be unclear so I will try to elucidate. Transcendence must exceed all values or qualities to exceed the scope of existence. So if you located its direct interaction, then that would mean that one of its aspects was directly correlated (i.e. comprehensible) in terms of reality. This would negate any claim to generalized transcendence.

Again , who and how to define the scope of existence ? My definition of existence is different than yours , and yours is different than other's so what is valid for me is not valid for you , Everybody believe differently, a belief system based on only human experience probably would be incomplete , and could be very inconsistent and faulty

With that said I have an extreme aversion to any attempt at personalizing or anthropomophizing such a being, since it technically can't even be called a "being." And I also don't particularly care for its possible "influence" if it were in direct contact with reality. I have no particular desire to find out what would happen if all truth values were simultaneously set to false or what would happen if reality was not equal to itself. I think restricting one's definition of "God" to Transcendence (generalized) is a technically valid move (I dislike the fact that there are like 39 different definitions for "God"), but I don't think that if there is a "God" that that is the most likely candidate.

I don't know what the problem with personalizing such being or God if I may say , for me it's a big issue to believe in reality , and I find personalizing God is a very intimate way to experience him and communicate with . I don't see the problem with that there are 39 different definitions for God , I think it opens the opportunity to find and build your own God definition and believes

HK

 

[Pachomius]

Originally Posted by stegthomson
proof is evidence!
​

If something existed in the empirical world that actually constituted a proof, then you might be right; it would be the absolute form of evidence. However, since no such thing actually exists outside of systems that limit the nature of its actors or contents, then you can't actually make any statement about "proofs" as they relate to our world.

I may be firmly convinced that you exist, but I don't actually have any proof of this. Your response could have been generated by a trollbot or you could be a figment of my imagination (the former being slightly more likely the latter is a given ).

MTF

I like very much to ask you whether you have a glossary of your peculiar terminology; or better go over your vocabulary here I mean your posts, and draw up a glossary for readers here to consult.

Consider including the possible terms that correspond to your ideas in the words below parsed from your sentences in your post above:

• 
  (Entry) ____ = something existing in the empirical world actually constituting a proof of another thing
  
  (Entry) ____ = the absolute form of evidence
  
  (Entry) ____ = something not actually existing outside of systems that limit the nature of its actors or contents
  
  (Entry) _____ = any statement about "proofs" as they relate to our world
  
  (Entry) _____ = someone you may be firmly convinced exist but don't actually have any proof
  
  (Entry) _____ = a response that could have been generated by a trollbot
  
  (Entry) _____ = a figment of your (ManTimeForgot) imagination already a given, not like the response from a trollbot above that is only slightly more likely -- i.e., not a given like your imagination figment
  

Dear ManTimeForgot, please consider this glossary of your terminology, I am certain to the degree that it is a given, readers and posters here will find it most useful for understanding your thinking and writing.




Pachomius

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Infinity is within the scope of the number system ,but we need eternity to realize it, the problem is that we are not aware of what eternity is as we are not aware of many intangible things ,this doesn't prove that infinity does not exists. however we could imagine or symbolize it's existence to be handled with our minds.

I posted this before somewhere as another example .we all know the imaginary number i=sqrt(-1) , which mathematically impossible because -1 * -1 = 1 , but does it's influence really exist ?,the answer is yes it does ,physics , atomic engineering and many practical equations -in aircraft constructions for example - were not be possible without i .

what I want to say is we cannot cancel the existence of something because we cannot sense or experiment it ,otherwise we make a process of abstraction ,by proving it's influence ,represent it in words , symbols, .. and handle it with our minds , senses and may be souls



You should define first what reality is , reality scoped with our senses ? Or experiment-able with our labs and sciences ?
Reality relative to the human's intellectual and sciences could be very misleading , many things were proved to be real , lately had many question marks , for example the evolution theory which is used now as a proof of God non existence , some thought that it's proved by fossils , geology ,others .. , but DNA when discovered raised many questions , and put the evolution theory under investigation again.
The tough fact that many people built their belief that God existence (which is a major issue in the human life) is not true, on the evolution theory .
Now suppose (I don't intend to talk about it now , let it for their threads) that evolution is false , this consequently destroys what many people believe.
I don't think it's valid (for me at least) to base our convictions on incomplete , limited ,changing , doubtful scientific facts



Again , who and how to define the scope of existence ? My definition of existence is different than yours , and yours is different than other's so what is valid for me is not valid for you , Everybody believe differently, a belief system based on only human experience probably would be incomplete , and could be very inconsistent and faulty




I don't know what the problem with personalizing such being or God if I may say , for me it's a big issue to believe in reality , and I find personalizing God is a very intimate way to experience him and communicate with . I don't see the problem with that there are 39 different definitions for God , I think it opens the opportunity to find and build your own God definition and believes

HK

You should recognize that your first statement is in fact a tautology; You can't understand infinity without infinity. That doesn't actually add anything. Moreover, you flat admitted that eternity doesn't exist in nature. That's because the only thing which could properly be said to have the quality of eternalness is reality itself.

Actually no, infinity is not a number. We can use it in our equations, but if you try and place it on the number line it will always result in something false, moreover any definition you can come up with for a number that also applies equally to integers, irrational numbers, and even imaginary numbers cannot also apply to infinity. Imaginary numbers have properties which defy conventional equations, but can still be used given a limited set of assumptions. The problem is that infinity requires assumptions that cannot be assigned to anything else; it is not a static value. The best we can do is approximate it with set theory or say that something approaches infinity with limits.

Side Note: Infinities would require infinite processing power and memory storage in order to appreciate the full scope. Try to imagine infinite apples; like visualize them. It will never happen. The "closest" that I have ever heard of is a math major who pointed out he could imagine a red blot that was infinite apples "realized" from infinite distance where the distance was a larger infinity than the infinity of the apples. Still haven't actually imagined an infinity because the infinite distance is itself not fully realized (what does it feel like to imagine the full scope of infinite distance?).



What do you mean define what "reality" is? Reality is the system that supports everything. This isn't merely the universe, or what we are aware of, or what humanity is aware of; it is the system that supports all existence.

I am talking about Existence unqualified. I am not talking about specific existences. Everything which exists possesses the faculty of existing. This is Existence unqualified. In order for Existence (unqualified) to be created, then something which transcends all forms of existing must be "true."



I find the notion of personalizing/anthropomorphizing that which transcends Existence (unqualified) to be absurd. How can you "experience" something which must by definition transcend all of existence which includes experiential reality (experiential reality is a sub-set of Reality unqualified). If you want to personalize/anthropomorphize your experience of the totality of Reality, then by all means do so, if that is what helps you appreciate or investigate it, but that isn't the same thing as personalizing something which must be transcend all things and defy all values including human attributions.

MTF

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I like very much to ask you whether you have a glossary of your peculiar terminology; or better go over your vocabulary here I mean your posts, and draw up a glossary for readers here to consult.

Consider including the possible terms that correspond to your ideas in the words below parsed from your sentences in your post above:

• (Entry) ____ = something existing in the empirical world actually constituting a proof of another thing
  
  (Entry) ____ = the absolute form of evidence
  
  (Entry) ____ = something not actually existing outside of systems that limit the nature of its actors or contents
  
  (Entry) _____ = any statement about "proofs" as they relate to our world
  
  (Entry) _____ = someone you may be firmly convinced exist but don't actually have any proof
  
  (Entry) _____ = a response that could have been generated by a trollbot
  
  (Entry) _____ = a figment of your (ManTimeForgot) imagination already a given, not like the response from a trollbot above that is only slightly more likely -- i.e., not a given like your imagination figment

Dear ManTimeForgot, please consider this glossary of your terminology, I am certain to the degree that it is a given, readers and posters here will find it most useful for understanding your thinking and writing.




Pachomius

I can't help but think that you are doing this on purpose; every post of mine you have responded to hasn't actually addressed in any of my posts; they have, one and all, been meta-level critiques.

But, if that is how you want it, here you go.


The world of experience does not contain any values which are equal to the definition of the word "proof" used in the absolute sense that logic and mathematics do. Any common sense usage or legal usage of the word "proof" is precisely equal to the term "evidence."

This statement is self-explanatory; I would recommend looking up the definitions of the words if you are having trouble here.

Mathematics and logic limit the content of their systems. Mathematics deals with numbers and number-like things & signs which perform operations that can be carried out with numbers or number-like things. If I ask you to prove mathematically that blue is a color, then you can't do it. Try and prove with logic that blue is a color, and depending on which kind of logic you are using you may not be able to do it.

This statement is self-explanatory; I would recommend looking up the definitions of the words if you are having trouble here.

It is not possible to use logic or mathematics to prove that someone else exists. Hence I may believe that someone else exists, but I don't have any possible form of proof.

A troll-bot is a program constructed for use on the internet to create spam messages. Otherwise, this statement is self-explanatory; I would recommend looking up the definitions of the words if you are having trouble here.

This confused jumble of false attribution does not correlate with my original statement in any way that resembles its original meaning. You could be a figment of my imagination (look up the definitions of the words if you are having trouble). This is not something which can be shown to be false (logic and mathematics cannot show this to be impossible; experience tells us this is unlikely, but it cannot show that it is impossible). The possibility that you are a troll-bot is something I consider to be more likely than you being a figment of my imagination (again self-explanatory).


Are you satisfied now, or is another interruption of the flow of debate necessary?

MTF

 

[cablescavenger]

It helps people with no imagination comfort themselves.

I never saw a dinosaur, but I can imagine what they were like.

 

[cablescavenger]

What's the story with people asking for proof and evidence?

of what?

 

[krsnaraja]

I may be firmly convinced that you exist, but I don't actually have any proof of this. Your response could have been generated by a trollbot or you could be a figment of my imagination (the former being slightly more likely the latter is a given ).

MTF

Do you know you? Do you know me? Do you know we? Do you know she? Do you know he? Do you know I? :beach:

 

[Tonymai]

Why evangelize without proof and evidence?

What's the deal with someone insisting that because something they take entirely on faith works emotionally/psychologically/spiritually for them, that is must therefore work for everyone else?

Otherwise, it would not be called taken on faith. If you take something on faith, you take it should work on all.

 

[krsnaraja]

Otherwise, it would not be called taken on faith. If you take something on faith, you take it should work on all.

What is faith?