4 ms·

Interesting discussion. If I may chime in, isn't the standard people set for proof of god's existence often impossibly high? Can't really blame anyone for setti

Interesting discussion. If I may chime in, isn't the standard people set for proof of god's existence often impossibly high? Can't really blame anyone for setting the bar high, but are we sure it's not too high? Even in mathematics all proofs depend on axioms in some way. And axioms are statements considered to be universally true without proof. Is the bar for proof in this case set higher than for a mathematical proof? What is proof anyway? > A proof becomes a proof only after the social act of “accepting it as a proof.” This is as true for mathematics as it is for physics, linguistics, or biology. The evolution of commonly accepted criteria for an argument’s being a proof is an almost untouched theme in the history of science. In any case, the ideal for what constitutes a mathematical demonstration of a “nonobvious truth” has remained unchanged since the time of Euclid: we must arrive at such a truth from “obvious” hypotheses, or assertions that have already been proved, by means of a series of explicitly described, “obviously valid” elementary deductions. [0] Do we have any true 100% proof for anything (where we don't rely on some assumption that we consider true without a proof)? [0] A Course in Mathematical Logic for Mathematicians (2010), page 45

moritzwarhier 3y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Acknowledging the axiomatic structure of logical reasoning is surely valuable. But if you want to relate this to mathematics, I think you should aim for more rigor. What definition of god you are even aiming to prove? Or accept as an axiom? And mathematical axioms are expected to be "self-evident", true! E.g., "if P is true, P is not false". Discussing these foundations of reasoning is interesting. But your conclusion sounds to me much like "we can't know anything and thinking is futile". The "100% proof" is a strawman — nobody demands one for God, as it is already impossible to perform a "100% proof" of the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. As far as my feeble mind understands, this is not how science works. Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. Proving that something does not exist ist rarely possible outside of abstract mathematics. But it is not possible to describe God in purely mathematical terms either, right? At least not without straying far from any concrete monotheistic religion. At best we can agree that God is one of infinitely many theories which are impossible to prove or disprove. Which makes it something for which "theory" is not even the right word. But the more serious you take some religions, and the more you go back in time, this is not what religion was all about. Religion is not only inner peace and positivity. It has been the foundation of ethics, I guess — which is important to me, again! And I would not argue that ethics can be "logically proven". But religion also often demands obedience, and used to make very concrete statements about what is true or false in the physical world. Only the increased possibilities to prove some of that wrong (e.g. praying can defeat physics and cause miracles) led to today's, more fuzzy definitions of Christian faith, step by step, over the course of centuries. Of course I acknowledge that this is a matter of interpretation and any single religious person can choose to ignore organized religion and such claims — as long as they are allowed to. > Do we have any true 100% proof for anything (where we don't rely on some assumption that we consider true without a proof)? I am trying to interpret your comment in a more charitable way, but it just seems to me like a classic logical fallacy that would "prove" anything and basically makes any rational argument futile. If God is an intangible abstract concept without a measurable, tangible relation to the physical world: fine! If it is also not a well-defined abstract concept that allows itself to be proven or disproven: also fine! But then what's left is emotion, ideas, human thought, ethics. Those are powerful and important parts of civilization. But we have then left any logical argument about "proving god's existence". And it has been consensus for a long time that these arguments are futile, for the exact reasons discussed here. Pretending otherwise is what mads high school phiolosophy classes unbearable when there were to many zealousl religious students and a bad teacher. It derails into either woo rhethorics or a shouting match. And this is why I said that studying these proofs is an interesting intellectual exercise, and sometimes tells a lot about the societal context. But no, these are not proofs in the sense of a falsifiable scientific methodology.
- zigzag312 3y ago
  The point I was trying to make was just that we often need to reevaluate the tools (methods) we use, and that we need axioms in order to "proof" anything. What proof do you seek? You mentioned before "proof of god's existance". I doubt that is even possible. If it were, religion would be a science and faith would not be needed. The better aim would probably be to seek for proof that the existence of god is possible. And then, if there is any possibility that any claims made by religions could be true. And then go from there. > Discussing these foundations of reasoning is interesting. But your conclusion sounds to me much like "we can't know anything and thinking is futile". Yes, for the first part, but your extrapolation in the second part is not what I concluded at all. It's just that we need to know the tools we use and their limitations. You agreed that we need axioms. Next step would be to define what kind of axioms would find acceptable. You said it needs to be "self-evident" and gave an example of "if P is true, P is not false". The law of non-contradiction. But is that enough? Do you reject the concept of superpositions in quantum mechanics as not possible? Defining what we can accept without a "proof" could be the key. You listed many good and interesting points. I agree with many of them. But sometimes I would say you jump to conclusions too fast with too many assumptions. Eg: > it just seems to me like a classic logical fallacy that would "prove" anything and basically makes any rational argument futile. I was just trying to make an argument about the need for axioms. We need things that are considered to be universally true without proof to proof anything. and: > Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. That statement could be considered a logical fallacy. But I agree with you that there is nothing to gain in discussing statements like "thinking is futile". We need to be aware at all times that logical systems, scientific method, etc. are human made tools that are fantastic, but still have limitations. We need to know when they are applicable and when they are not. So that we can notice, if we are abusing them in any way in order to reach our conclusions. (And to set realistic goals/expectations of what, how and with what confidence we can conclude something.)
  - moritzwarhier 3y ago
    I think we have some common ground as well as some differing perspectives, I'll leave it at that and thank you for participating in this civil discussion. Just one thing, I want to elaborate on what I meant here: > > Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. > That statement could be considered a logical fallacy. But I agree with you that there is nothing to gain in discussing statements like "thinking is futile". I don't see why you say that "Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago." relating to "100% proofs" would be considered a logical fallacy? What I was aiming at is the fundamental principle of "evidence" in the context of sciences, and the philosophical underpinnings of "empiricism". Claimed "evidence" for the metaphysical idea of God, particularly the Christian God, if I understand correctly, was the origin of this discussion. And unless someone can up with a falsifiable definition of God, it just is muddying the waters and derailing discussion IMO to use scientific terms in relation to non-falsifiable ideas. It is an entirely different matter to me to honestly ponder the human condition, ethics, the foundations of civilisation, and the values of religious belief. It is also interesting to consider "what can I know" and to realise that a "closed" scientific world view is in fact not in accordance with scientific principles. Still, I don't see how it would make sense to equate religious beliefs with mathematical axioms.

moritzwarhier 3y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Acknowledging the axiomatic structure of logical reasoning is surely valuable. But if you want to relate this to mathematics, I think you should aim for more rigor. What definition of god you are even aiming to prove? Or accept as an axiom? And mathematical axioms are expected to be "self-evident", true! E.g., "if P is true, P is not false". Discussing these foundations of reasoning is interesting. But your conclusion sounds to me much like "we can't know anything and thinking is futile". The "100% proof" is a strawman — nobody demands one for God, as it is already impossible to perform a "100% proof" of the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. As far as my feeble mind understands, this is not how science works. Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. Proving that something does not exist ist rarely possible outside of abstract mathematics. But it is not possible to describe God in purely mathematical terms either, right? At least not without straying far from any concrete monotheistic religion. At best we can agree that God is one of infinitely many theories which are impossible to prove or disprove. Which makes it something for which "theory" is not even the right word. But the more serious you take some religions, and the more you go back in time, this is not what religion was all about. Religion is not only inner peace and positivity. It has been the foundation of ethics, I guess — which is important to me, again! And I would not argue that ethics can be "logically proven". But religion also often demands obedience, and used to make very concrete statements about what is true or false in the physical world. Only the increased possibilities to prove some of that wrong (e.g. praying can defeat physics and cause miracles) led to today's, more fuzzy definitions of Christian faith, step by step, over the course of centuries. Of course I acknowledge that this is a matter of interpretation and any single religious person can choose to ignore organized religion and such claims — as long as they are allowed to. > Do we have any true 100% proof for anything (where we don't rely on some assumption that we consider true without a proof)? I am trying to interpret your comment in a more charitable way, but it just seems to me like a classic logical fallacy that would "prove" anything and basically makes any rational argument futile. If God is an intangible abstract concept without a measurable, tangible relation to the physical world: fine! If it is also not a well-defined abstract concept that allows itself to be proven or disproven: also fine! But then what's left is emotion, ideas, human thought, ethics. Those are powerful and important parts of civilization. But we have then left any logical argument about "proving god's existence". And it has been consensus for a long time that these arguments are futile, for the exact reasons discussed here. Pretending otherwise is what mads high school phiolosophy classes unbearable when there were to many zealousl religious students and a bad teacher. It derails into either woo rhethorics or a shouting match. And this is why I said that studying these proofs is an interesting intellectual exercise, and sometimes tells a lot about the societal context. But no, these are not proofs in the sense of a falsifiable scientific methodology.

zigzag312 3y ago
The point I was trying to make was just that we often need to reevaluate the tools (methods) we use, and that we need axioms in order to "proof" anything. What proof do you seek? You mentioned before "proof of god's existance". I doubt that is even possible. If it were, religion would be a science and faith would not be needed. The better aim would probably be to seek for proof that the existence of god is possible. And then, if there is any possibility that any claims made by religions could be true. And then go from there. > Discussing these foundations of reasoning is interesting. But your conclusion sounds to me much like "we can't know anything and thinking is futile". Yes, for the first part, but your extrapolation in the second part is not what I concluded at all. It's just that we need to know the tools we use and their limitations. You agreed that we need axioms. Next step would be to define what kind of axioms would find acceptable. You said it needs to be "self-evident" and gave an example of "if P is true, P is not false". The law of non-contradiction. But is that enough? Do you reject the concept of superpositions in quantum mechanics as not possible? Defining what we can accept without a "proof" could be the key. You listed many good and interesting points. I agree with many of them. But sometimes I would say you jump to conclusions too fast with too many assumptions. Eg: > it just seems to me like a classic logical fallacy that would "prove" anything and basically makes any rational argument futile. I was just trying to make an argument about the need for axioms. We need things that are considered to be universally true without proof to proof anything. and: > Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. That statement could be considered a logical fallacy. But I agree with you that there is nothing to gain in discussing statements like "thinking is futile". We need to be aware at all times that logical systems, scientific method, etc. are human made tools that are fantastic, but still have limitations. We need to know when they are applicable and when they are not. So that we can notice, if we are abusing them in any way in order to reach our conclusions. (And to set realistic goals/expectations of what, how and with what confidence we can conclude something.)
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  I think we have some common ground as well as some differing perspectives, I'll leave it at that and thank you for participating in this civil discussion. Just one thing, I want to elaborate on what I meant here: > > Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago. > That statement could be considered a logical fallacy. But I agree with you that there is nothing to gain in discussing statements like "thinking is futile". I don't see why you say that "Philosophy of science has moved on from this a long time ago." relating to "100% proofs" would be considered a logical fallacy? What I was aiming at is the fundamental principle of "evidence" in the context of sciences, and the philosophical underpinnings of "empiricism". Claimed "evidence" for the metaphysical idea of God, particularly the Christian God, if I understand correctly, was the origin of this discussion. And unless someone can up with a falsifiable definition of God, it just is muddying the waters and derailing discussion IMO to use scientific terms in relation to non-falsifiable ideas. It is an entirely different matter to me to honestly ponder the human condition, ethics, the foundations of civilisation, and the values of religious belief. It is also interesting to consider "what can I know" and to realise that a "closed" scientific world view is in fact not in accordance with scientific principles. Still, I don't see how it would make sense to equate religious beliefs with mathematical axioms.