On the Necessity of Proving Things

[Image_of_God]

The basic proposition is that it is sensible to speak of true and false statements. You may call it an unproven act of faith, I certainly do not.

If my description of these axioms is false in any manner, then please demonstrate how and why. But if they are true, then why won’t you accept them?

Those Eastern philosophers (I never heard of them or their views) can preach whatever they want to. Let them live according to their own preaching and very soon they will die. Exactly like a staunch solipsist who only believes in his own existence. As soon as he opens his mouth to speak, he invalidated his own belief. As soon as he takes a piece of food, he refutes his own concepts. If he would be consistent to his views, he would starve.

Let me not be misunderstood. Many Eastern philosophers are very sensible people who would agree with Western philosophers on the most elementary of things. However, to many, the laws of logic are not the sole source to the truth. They are but one reflection of it. I think that Christians can agree with this. Logic is an expression of God’s nature, but not the sole expression of it.

I don’t have to say that those people are insane. They do it for me. There are some things we call “facts”. And facts are stubborn things. No matter how one wishes them away, they stay with us, and remind us of our mistakes - sometimes very strongly. Nature is not forgiving.

The look very sane to me. Is this another one of your arbitrary assignments? I might be willing to accept it if only you admitted that what you are saying is fundamentally arbitrary.

What you display here is a case of universal skepticism, which is truly a self-refuting idea. If you say that we cannot know anything without making unfounded assumptions (based on faith), then this either applies to your own assertion or it does not. If it does, what is that faith? If it does not, then you know something without resorting to faith. It is that simple.

I avoid universal skepticism because

1. I never claimed we can’t know anything at all. (if I did then I must have been mistaken)
2. I never claimed that certain knowledge does not exist at all.

What I have claimed however, it is not necessary to prove something in order for it to be true. I have also claimed that the certainty of something is shown to us by intuition and reason. These two things (intuition and reason) are very certain. We would have to avoid thinking and functioning to deny them.

Throughout this thread you have claimed a number of things to be true and I have ask you to defend them knowing full and well that you would not be able to. One such defense would have be to say that you simply know them to be true (intuition). But if you answered this way, you would be caught in a contradiction, because isn’t this the same claim that Christians have about God? Isn’t this a similar explanation for the direct encounter with the Most High One which Christians cannot describe, but know through intuition? And yet, they are mocked by many people for it.

R Daneel, I have become convinced that you have never thought about the very fundamentals of what you believe (yes, believe is the exact word because a religion is exactly what you profess, though you will deny it). Otherwise, answer this one question: How do I know that everything you are claiming is true? This isn’t the first time I ask this question, but every time I ask it you find something else to point out. So I choose to ask it again.

 

[R_Daneel]

If my description of these axioms is false in any manner, then please demonstrate how and why. But if they are true, then why won’t you accept them?

I don’t understand in what manner is this a reply to my question.

Let me not be misunderstood. Many Eastern philosophers are very sensible people who would agree with Western philosophers on the most elementary of things. However, to many, the laws of logic are not the sole source to the truth.

I know of no one who would assert that (except WSP, but he does not count). Logic is simply a tool, and its 3 basic laws are accepted not on faith, but because their denial would necessitate to accept them.

They look very sane to me.

They look sane to you? Someone who denies external reality and sticks to his view? You are looking at a dead person. Does he look sane?

I avoid universal skepticism because

1. I never claimed we can’t know anything at all. (if I did then I must have been mistaken)
2. I never claimed that certain knowledge does not exist at all.

You said that we cannot know anything, unless we accept some basic assumptions which are unproven and unprovable - and you call that faith. You call everything “faith” if it is not “proven”. I don’t agree with your usage of the word “faith”.

What I have claimed however, it is not necessary to prove something in order for it to be true. I have also claimed that the certainty of something is shown to us by intuition and reason. These two things (intuition and reason) are very certain. We would have to avoid thinking and functioning to deny them.

Right. Now the question is, since these are not proven (according to your words) do they rest of faith of any kind? If they do not then the usage of “faith” is not necessary any more. If they do, just is that “faith” you employ?

Now, let’s cut to the chase.

We know one thing absolutely certainly, and that is “we know that we exist”. We may be uncertain about our own nature, but the “cogito ergo sum” is still valid, and our own existence is beyond any doubt. We need no faith to accept it. Do you agree so far?

If you do, we can continue. If you don’t we have to stop.

 

[Image_of_God]

I don’t understand in what manner is this a reply to my question.

If you look my post, you would see that it is not a reply to a question at all.

I know of no one who would assert that (except WSP, but he does not count). Logic is simply a tool, and its 3 basic laws are accepted not on faith, but because their denial would necessitate to accept them.

Then you have not heard of the Romanticists who were understandably frustrated with a worldview that emphasizes logic so much that it becomes somewhat legalistic. Logic is not end all and be all of everything. Truth can be arrived at intellectually and intuitively, by rational reasoning and by what we feel. Do you think that all artists paint for fun and money? Some people find the truth in music, others in beauty, others in acts of goodness. Are you saying that that’s not possible? Because if you are, that’s a claim that needs support, unless you appeal to something.

They look sane to you? Someone who denies external reality and sticks to his view? You are looking at a dead person. Does he look sane?

I am waiting for you state the clear and obvious truth. But I won’t state it to you because it should be evident from everything I’ve been telling you.

You said that we cannot know anything, unless we accept some basic assumptions which are unproven and unprovable - and you call that faith. You call everything “faith” if it is not “proven”. I don’t agree with your usage of the word “faith”.

Then obviously I did not say that we cannot know anything. If the word “faith” is truly problematic for you then we continue to use some other word. But that does not change the fact that they are not proven and that there truth rests on reason and intuition.

Right. Now the question is, since these are not proven (according to your words) do they rest of faith of any kind? If they do not then the usage of “faith” is not necessary any more. If they do, just is that “faith” you employ?

Let us put an end to it being only “according to [my] words”. Please prove them.

The word faith, as I showed you has different meanings. The dictionary confirms my usage of it as something believed without proof. I am not wrong with my usage, but if you want me to change it then I can.

Now, let’s cut to the chase.

We know one thing absolutely certainly, and that is “we know that we exist”. We may be uncertain about our own nature, but the “cogito ergo sum” is still valid, and our own existence is beyond any doubt. We need no faith to accept it. Do you agree so far?

If you do, we can continue. If you don’t we have to stop.

I have agreed. Which is why I was wondering why you accused me of universal skepticism. I have never denied this. This is the only thing self-evident on truly logical grounds. Other things may be self-evident on more intuitive grounds.

But anyway, we can continue.

 

[R_Daneel]

If you look my post, you would see that it is not a reply to a question at all.

OK.

Then you have not heard of the Romanticists who were understandably frustrated with a worldview that emphasizes logic so much that it becomes somewhat legalistic. Logic is not end all and be all of everything. Truth can be arrived at intellectually and intuitively, by rational reasoning and by what we feel. Do you think that all artists paint for fun and money? Some people find the truth in music, others in beauty, others in acts of goodness. Are you saying that that’s not possible? Because if you are, that’s a claim that needs support, unless you appeal to something.

The poor word “truth” must be frustrated by being used in so many context. Guess we need to (try to) agree about it’s usage in this particular context. I offer this: “something is true if it describes external reality accurately” or “something which is the logical corollary of a chosen set of axioms”. The other usages may be poetic, but irrelevant to this conversation.

I am waiting for you state the clear and obvious truth. But I won’t state it to you because it should be evident from everything I’ve been telling you.

Nothing is evident this time. If someone adheres to a lifestyle which naturally and inevitably leads to his own destruction, he is insane. That is all.

Then obviously I did not say that we cannot know anything. If the word “faith” is truly problematic for you then we continue to use some other word. But that does not change the fact that they are not proven and that their truth rests on reason and intuition.

Faith has too many theological connotations. And it has too many meanings. The word “belief” will do just fine.

I have agreed. Which is why I was wondering why you accused me of universal skepticism. I have never denied this. This is the only thing self-evident on truly logical grounds. Other things may be self-evident on more intuitive grounds.

But anyway, we can continue.

Very well. Now let’s consider the next step. Our own existence is beyond doubt. We have sensory organs, and we percieve some external reality. There are two possibilities, either we accept the veracity of the report of our sensory organs, or we deny it. How can we deny it? On what grounds? We cannot use the sensory organs to invalidate them, it would be a logical contradiction. Therefore, sheer logic, without any reference to “intuition” leads to the acceptance to the validity of our senses. Mind you, we can also verify it by applying the organs to ourselves - but it is not strictly necessary. Pure logic leads to acceptance of the reliability of our senses. I offer this as an argument to the bolded sentence above.

Now the next step. We perceive the outer world, and we must accept the reliability of our senses. Therefore, again, on purely logical ground we must accept the validity of this outer world. Still no intuition needed. Pure logic demands that solipsism must be abandoned. The external world exists and our senses accurately report it. And no intution was needed anywhere in the process. Do you agree so far?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I know of no one who would assert that (except WSP, but he does not count). Logic is simply a tool, and its 3 basic laws are accepted not on faith, but because their denial would necessitate to accept them.

**
the laws of logic are not the sole source to the truth.**

you dont know any theists? im pretty sure the billions theists on the planet would tell you that they accept revelation as a source of truth.

 

[R_Daneel]

you dont know any theists? im pretty sure the billions theists on the planet would tell you that they accept revelation as a source of truth.

And what does that prove?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And what does that prove?

that you do know people other than me, that would assert that.

 

[R_Daneel]

that you do know people other than me, that would assert that.

And what does that prove?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And what does that prove?

is there some further goal needed?

 

[Hooding_Trees]

There is no rule, in science or whatever, that says a snake cannot talk. Likewise, there is no law that says that humans have to talk because they have a particular biological make up. What a “snake” is is a rather arbitrary classification that has more to do with sharing most of the same characteristics. Parrots can “talk”. Most other birds cannot. Does a parrot somehow become more than a bird because it can talk while other birds cannot. Not at all. Provided the parrot shares most of the characteristics assigned to a bird.

Actually there is a rule (so to speak) in science that says snakes cannot talk. You should research taxonomy.

Oh and parrots mimic sounds they are not capable of conversation.

 

[Image_of_God]

OK.

The poor word “truth” must be frustrated by being used in so many context. Guess we need to (try to) agree about it’s usage in this particular context. I offer this: “something is true if it describes external reality accurately” or “something which is the logical corollary of a chosen set of axioms”. The other usages may be poetic, but irrelevant to this conversation.

I will agree with you only if I believe what you are saying to be true. You have no way of defending these definitions as accurate. I will accept them, if I do at all, because I find them intuitively to be reasonable.

Please, don’t think that I’m being annoyingly difficult. However, I’m trying to prove the point that you have constantly been evading.

Nothing is evident this time. If someone adheres to a lifestyle which naturally and inevitably leads to his own destruction, he is insane. That is all.

And the same could be possibly said (inoffensively) about you. How do you defend your position? Why should I believe your classification? Either, you admit that I must simply believe what you are saying with good reason or you continue to confess that it is true simply because you say it is.

Faith has too many theological connotations. And it has too many meanings. The word “belief” will do just fine.

I will follow through then. But note, this doesn’t change the fact that these beliefs have no proof to verify them and are completely dependent on reason and intuition.

Very well. Now let’s consider the next step. Our own existence is beyond doubt. We have sensory organs, and we percieve some external reality. There are two possibilities, either we accept the veracity of the report of our sensory organs, or we deny it. How can we deny it? On what grounds? We cannot use the sensory organs to invalidate them, it would be a logical contradiction. Therefore, sheer logic, without any reference to “intuition” leads to the acceptance to the validity of our senses. Mind you, we can also verify it by applying the organs to ourselves - but it is not strictly necessary. Pure logic leads to acceptance of the reliability of our senses. I offer this as an argument to the bolded sentence above.

I agree with this to an extent. I agree that our senses are understood by logic, to be undeniably true. If this were not the case, as you have said, then it would lead to contradiction. However, it does not prove logically that what I’m seeing is really what’s there (look at people who are colorblind). It does not prove that what I’m feeling is right (one man after being struck by lightning could feel perfectly fine in the cold). It does not prove that I’m smelling an accurate. It does not prove what I’m hearing to be accurate. It does not prove logically that what tasting to be accurate.

Now the next step. We perceive the outer world, and we must accept the reliability of our senses. Therefore, again, on purely logical ground we must accept the validity of this outer world. Still no intuition needed. Pure logic demands that solipsism must be abandoned. The external world exists and our senses accurately report it. And no intution was needed anywhere in the process. Do you agree so far?

I am very happy to accept that my senses are reliable. But that would be what I’m doing, accepting. And that’s where intuition comes in.

 

[Image_of_God]

Actually there is a rule (so to speak) in science that says snakes cannot talk. You should research taxonomy.

Taxonomy is the study of the classification of things. It is not a rule in any form. And as I have expressed, the classification is by no means as rigid as you are implying.

Oh and parrots mimic sounds they are not capable of conversation.

We were talking about talking snakes and the fact that parrots can talk. We were not talking about conversing yet.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Taxonomy is the study of the classification of things. It is not a rule in any form. And as I have expressed, the classification is by no means as rigid as you are implying.

We were talking about talking snakes and the fact that parrots can talk. We were not talking about conversing yet.

Actually the classification is most defiantly rigid enough to exclude snakes from talking.

Furthermore parrots cannot talk in the sense suggested in the bible, they can mimic sounds. However to cut through the semantics i will rephrase, snakes cannot have conversations. It is quite simply impossible.

talk (tôk)
v. talked, talk·ing, talks
v.tr.

1. To articulate (words): The baby is talking sentences now.
2. To give expression to in words: talk treason.
3. To speak of or discuss (something): talk music; talk business;
4. To speak or know how to speak in (an idiom or language): talked French with the flight crew.
5. To gain, influence, or bring into a specified state by talking: talked me into coming; talked their way out of trouble.
6. To spend (a period of time) by or as if by talking: talked the evening away.
   v.intr.
7. To converse by means of spoken language: We talked for hours. See Synonyms at speak.
8. To articulate words: The baby can talk.
9. To imitate the sounds of human speech: The parrot talks.
10. To express one’s thoughts or emotions by means of spoken language: talked about the pros and cons of the issue.
11. To convey one’s thoughts in a way other than by spoken words: talk with one’s hands.
12. To express one’s thoughts in writing: Voltaire talks about London in this book.
13. To parley or negotiate with someone: Let’s talk before continuing to fight.
14. To spread rumors; gossip: If you do that, people will talk.
15. To allude to something: Are you talking about last week?
16. To consult or confer with someone: I talked with the doctor.
17. To reveal information concerning oneself or others, especially under pressure: Has the prisoner talked?
18. Informal To be efficacious: Money talks.
    n.
19. An exchange of ideas or opinions; a conversation.
20. A speech or lecture.
21. Hearsay, rumor, or speculation: There is talk of bankruptcy.
22. A subject of conversation: a musical that is the talk of the town.
23. A conference or negotiation. Often used in the plural: peace talks.
24. Jargon; slang: prison talk.
25. Empty speech or unnecessary discussion: much talk and no action.
26. A particular manner of speech: baby talk; honeyed talk.
27. Something, such as the sounds of animals, felt to resemble human talk: whale talk.

 

[greylorn]

Actually the classification is most defiantly rigid enough to exclude snakes from talking.

Furthermore parrots cannot talk in the sense suggested in the bible, they can mimic sounds. However to cut through the semantics i will rephrase, snakes cannot have conversations. It is quite simply impossible.

talk (tôk)
v. talked, talk·ing, talks
v.tr.

1. To articulate (words): The baby is talking sentences now.
2. To give expression to in words: talk treason.
3. Etc.etc. .

Given your keen fervor for semantic rigor, you’ll want to make a note to the effect that “the classification” is not what precludes snakes from talking.

More likely, lack of suitable anatomical and neurological structures would explain it scientifically.

Or, it could be that they lack a mind and therefore have nothing to say, except that many of the recent posts on this thread would seem to invalidate that implied cause-effect relationship.

 

[Image_of_God]

Actually the classification is most defiantly rigid enough to exclude snakes from talking.

Furthermore parrots cannot talk in the sense suggested in the bible, they can mimic sounds. However to cut through the semantics i will rephrase, snakes cannot have conversations. It is quite simply impossible.

talk (tôk)
v. talked, talk·ing, talks
v.tr.

1. To articulate (words): The baby is talking sentences now.
2. To give expression to in words: talk treason.
3. To speak of or discuss (something): talk music; talk business;
4. To speak or know how to speak in (an idiom or language): talked French with the flight crew.
5. To gain, influence, or bring into a specified state by talking: talked me into coming; talked their way out of trouble.
6. To spend (a period of time) by or as if by talking: talked the evening away.
   v.intr.
7. To converse by means of spoken language: We talked for hours. See Synonyms at speak.
8. To articulate words: The baby can talk.
9. To imitate the sounds of human speech: The parrot talks.
10. To express one’s thoughts or emotions by means of spoken language: talked about the pros and cons of the issue.
11. To convey one’s thoughts in a way other than by spoken words: talk with one’s hands.
12. To express one’s thoughts in writing: Voltaire talks about London in this book.
13. To parley or negotiate with someone: Let’s talk before continuing to fight.
14. To spread rumors; gossip: If you do that, people will talk.
15. To allude to something: Are you talking about last week?
16. To consult or confer with someone: I talked with the doctor.
17. To reveal information concerning oneself or others, especially under pressure: Has the prisoner talked?
18. Informal To be efficacious: Money talks.
    n.
19. An exchange of ideas or opinions; a conversation.
20. A speech or lecture.
21. Hearsay, rumor, or speculation: There is talk of bankruptcy.
22. A subject of conversation: a musical that is the talk of the town.
23. A conference or negotiation. Often used in the plural: peace talks.
24. Jargon; slang: prison talk.
25. Empty speech or unnecessary discussion: much talk and no action.
26. A particular manner of speech: baby talk; honeyed talk.
27. Something, such as the sounds of animals, felt to resemble human talk: whale talk.

If a prominent taxonomist decided one day that, if he observed an animal talking which closely resembled a snake in most other characteristics save speech, it should be considered part of the group of snakes, and most other taxonomists agreed with him, then it would be considered a talking snake by most people eventually. That’s how not-so-rigid the classification of things is.

 

[Thing]

Actually the classification is most defiantly rigid enough to exclude snakes from talking.

Furthermore parrots cannot talk in the sense suggested in the bible, they can mimic sounds. However to cut through the semantics i will rephrase, snakes cannot have conversations. It is quite simply impossible.

talk (tôk)
v. talked, talk·ing, talks
v.tr.

1. To articulate (words): The baby is talking sentences now.
2. To give expression to in words: talk treason.
3. To speak of or discuss (something): talk music; talk business;
4. To speak or know how to speak in (an idiom or language): talked French with the flight crew.
5. To gain, influence, or bring into a specified state by talking: talked me into coming; talked their way out of trouble.
6. To spend (a period of time) by or as if by talking: talked the evening away.
   v.intr.
7. To converse by means of spoken language: We talked for hours. See Synonyms at speak.
8. To articulate words: The baby can talk.
9. To imitate the sounds of human speech: The parrot talks.
10. To express one’s thoughts or emotions by means of spoken language: talked about the pros and cons of the issue.
11. To convey one’s thoughts in a way other than by spoken words: talk with one’s hands.
12. To express one’s thoughts in writing: Voltaire talks about London in this book.
13. To parley or negotiate with someone: Let’s talk before continuing to fight.
14. To spread rumors; gossip: If you do that, people will talk.
15. To allude to something: Are you talking about last week?
16. To consult or confer with someone: I talked with the doctor.
17. To reveal information concerning oneself or others, especially under pressure: Has the prisoner talked?
18. Informal To be efficacious: Money talks.
    n.
19. An exchange of ideas or opinions; a conversation.
20. A speech or lecture.
21. Hearsay, rumor, or speculation: There is talk of bankruptcy.
22. A subject of conversation: a musical that is the talk of the town.
23. A conference or negotiation. Often used in the plural: peace talks.
24. Jargon; slang: prison talk.
25. Empty speech or unnecessary discussion: much talk and no action.
26. A particular manner of speech: baby talk; honeyed talk.
27. Something, such as the sounds of animals, felt to resemble human talk: whale talk.

Perhaps you are forgetting the serpent was the devil, a fallen angel.

[to the serpent God said] …I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

If a prominent taxonomist decided one day that, if he observed an animal talking which closely resembled a snake in most other characteristics save speech, it should be considered part of the group of snakes, and most other taxonomists agreed with him, then it would be considered a talking snake by most people eventually. That’s how not-so-rigid the classification of things is.

Sorry that is just simply incorrect. I am not sure what else to tell you. If an animal was found that had all the characteristics of a snake, however it was capable of conversation you would not only have destroyed linnaean classification for you would have found an example of an animal that violates the nested hierarchies, but you would also have falsified evolution.

 

[Image_of_God]

Sorry that is just simply incorrect. I am not sure what else to tell you. If an animal was found that had all the characteristics of a snake, however it was capable of conversation you would not only have destroyed linnaean classification for you would have found an example of an animal that violates the nested hierarchies, but you would also have falsified evolution.

Linnanean taxonomy has its own host of problems. It has certainly undergone changes because of new findings. If a snake that could talk was ever found we would simply have to change our organization of things and our theories. It is nothing new and has been done many times before in many areas of science. To ignore the possibility is historically unsound and intellectual dishonest. Our present idea of how things are and how they work is very far from perfect and if one thing is certain, it will change in the future.

To add to the point, the way that Linnaeus had originally organized organisms—Animal, Plant, Mineral—has undergone many changes due to new findings.

 

[lemondiesel]

Perhaps you are forgetting the serpent was the devil, a fallen angel.

[to the serpent God said] …I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

yet this fallen angel is given power like God? Why is the devil so feared when God could easily defeat him if he is all powerful and has no equal? How can you say it was not God presenting himself as temptation?

 

[anthony022071]

In other words, logic is not founded on itself, but rather on more intuitive faculties.

Logic is founded on the assumption that there is rational order in reality that can be traced out by human reason. Aristotle said in his Posterior Analytics that no science can prove its proper principles but they are postulated as self-evident.