The limits of proof

[Thales]

So many threads on this forum seem to break down into the atheist, agnostic, naturalist, materialist, etc. demanding proofs from the Christian/Catholic/ theist for a variety of their religious claims. I realize the importance of proofs in being able to lay a solid foundation on which to build further claims, as a sort of agreeing point to venture further into inquiry from. I wonder though if some people have equated truth with proof, where only that which can be proven is true.

As I question the limits of proof some questions have arisen to which I would like to get some opinions on.

Can personal experiences be proven? How does subjectivity and experience hold to be true when it can not be tested under the scientific method or be confirmed by some proof?

If I ate an egg muffin sandwich for breakfast 3 days ago and no one saw me, can it be proven that I really ate such a sandwich? Is there some method to confirm to a proof what I experienced was true?

 

[Katholish]

Logical proofs are only required for those things which we cannot or do not directly experience. If a thing is directly experienced, it is known. No “proof” required.

Since it is not possible to directly experience God in this life, and most of us have not directly experienced a miracle, we rely on logical proofs to support our understanding of religion including both philosophical and revealed truths.

 

[Alindawyl]

Proof is a term which is often misunderstood and/or misused. It can mean different things when talking about empirical science, theology, mathematics, logic, etc.

Not all uses imply or require irrefutability. Irrefutability is rarely even possible.

When discussing beliefs, proof is typically justification or reasoning. Of course, you have the problem of some who refute the reasoning then attempting to conflate the phrases “I disagree with your reasoning” or “I disagree with the assumptions on which you base your reasoning” with the phrase “What you say is unreasonable”. Disagreement doesn’t automatically make someone’s reasoning unreasonable. And that goes for both theists and atheists…

 

[liquidpele]

So many threads on this forum seem to break down into the atheist, agnostic, naturalist, materialist, etc. demanding proofs from the Christian/Catholic/ theist for a variety of their religious claims. I realize the importance of proofs in being able to lay a solid foundation on which to build further claims, as a sort of agreeing point to venture further into inquiry from. I wonder though if some people have equated truth with proof, where only that which can be proven is true.

As I question the limits of proof some questions have arisen to which I would like to get some opinions on.

Can personal experiences be proven? How does subjectivity and experience hold to be true when it can not be tested under the scientific method or be confirmed by some proof?

If I ate an egg muffin sandwich for breakfast 3 days ago and no one saw me, can it be proven that I really ate such a sandwich? Is there some method to confirm to a proof what I experienced was true?

Personal experiences are by definition “anecdotal evidence”… Which is discussed here:

youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc

 

[nkbeth]

If I ate an egg muffin sandwich for breakfast 3 days ago and no one saw me, can it be proven that I really ate such a sandwich? Is there some method to confirm to a proof what I experienced was true?

I suppose “forensics” could conceivably be used some day to legally establish “beyond all shadow of a doubt” that you ate that sandwich! But to YOU the fact is just evident, and needs no proof.

Some things are just EVIDENT. I don’t need proof that I exist and the world exists. It is evident (however mistaken I may be in the details). It is evident to me that the grass is sometimes(!) green (or at the very least that I see it as green). It can’t be proven. A vote is not the same as a proof. I can’t prove to anyone that I see grass as green

Some things are SELF-evident. TRUE and FALSE are not the same thing; to be and not to be are different.

To deny that anything is evident or self-evident is to deny there is such a thing as reality.

 

[Leela]

Proof is a term which is often misunderstood and/or misused. It can mean different things when talking about empirical science, theology, mathematics, logic, etc.

Not all uses imply or require irrefutability. Irrefutability is rarely even possible.

When discussing beliefs, proof is typically justification or reasoning. Of course, you have the problem of some who refute the reasoning then attempting to conflate the phrases “I disagree with your reasoning” or “I disagree with the assumptions on which you base your reasoning” with the phrase “What you say is unreasonable”. Disagreement doesn’t automatically make someone’s reasoning unreasonable. And that goes for both theists and atheists…

I agree that proof is a sort of justification. Proof is a justification that is supposed to be so convincing that it compels belief. Since some people never seem to be convinced by the sort of things that others think ought to compel belief, I suppose you could include some qualification about a “competent observer.” For example, mathematical proofs that are over my head cannot compel my belief but may be considered proof anyway because “competent observers”, mathematicians you have undergone a certain training agree on what constitutes proof, are compelled to believe by mathematical proofs.

But generally, it does no good to claim that you have proven something to someone who is still incredulous, which is what people seem to do a lot of in this forum. By the same token, we also see a lot of “fake doubt.” If one wants to play the skeptic, she can always just claim not to be convinced. People are frequently asked for proof by people who can give no reason to doubt what they want proven. We should feel no obligation to respond to such requests for proof.

Best,
Leela

 

[James_S_Saint]

So many threads on this forum seem to break down into the atheist, agnostic, naturalist, materialist, etc. demanding proofs from the Christian/Catholic/ theist for a variety of their religious claims. I realize the importance of proofs in being able to lay a solid foundation on which to build further claims, as a sort of agreeing point to venture further into inquiry from. I wonder though if some people have equated truth with proof, where only that which can be proven is true.

This is the result of “the new paradigm”, socialism - guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Roman_Army]

If I ate an egg muffin sandwich for breakfast 3 days ago and no one saw me, can it be proven that I really ate such a sandwich? Is there some method to confirm to a proof what I experienced was true?

There is a scientific test they can do by collecting hair samples or finger nail samples and with this they can estimate what your diet consisted of, but they probably would not be able to say “egg Mcmuffin sandwich from Mcdonnald’s,” LOL. They’ll probably just judge based on the nutrients and say you had wheat, meat, egg, and dairy. I saw them do this in a documentary about the bodies of some ancient Celts that were recently found mumified for thousands of years in bogs in Ireland. The contents of the bogs effectively preserved their bodies with their hair and fingernails intact and everything. Their diet was rich in vegetables and fingernails appeared to have undergone manicures suggesting they were part of the elite class, and their wounds suggested they were executed for some crime or transgression.

 

[JesuisSean]

So many threads on this forum seem to break down into the atheist, agnostic, naturalist, materialist, etc. demanding proofs from the Christian/Catholic/ theist for a variety of their religious claims. I realize the importance of proofs in being able to lay a solid foundation on which to build further claims, as a sort of agreeing point to venture further into inquiry from. I wonder though if some people have equated truth with proof, where only that which can be proven is true.

As I question the limits of proof some questions have arisen to which I would like to get some opinions on.

Can personal experiences be proven? How does subjectivity and experience hold to be true when it can not be tested under the scientific method or be confirmed by some proof?

If I ate an egg muffin sandwich for breakfast 3 days ago and no one saw me, can it be proven that I really ate such a sandwich? Is there some method to confirm to a proof what I experienced was true?

Proof is sometimes of no value. If a person has a strong belief, and proof is available to show that this particular belief is flawed, the proof is of absolutely no use at all. Once such a person bonds with a belief, all the proof in the universe can not change their mind.

 

[AnAtheist]

So many threads on this forum seem to break down into the atheist, agnostic, naturalist, materialist, etc. demanding proofs from the Christian/Catholic/ theist for a variety of their religious claims. I realize the importance of proofs in being able to lay a solid foundation on which to build further claims, as a sort of agreeing point to venture further into inquiry from. I wonder though if some people have equated truth with proof, where only that which can be proven is true.

As I question the limits of proof some questions have arisen to which I would like to get some opinions on.

Can personal experiences be proven? How does subjectivity and experience hold to be true when it can not be tested under the scientific method or be confirmed by some proof?

If I ate an egg muffin sandwich for breakfast 3 days ago and no one saw me, can it be proven that I really ate such a sandwich? Is there some method to confirm to a proof what I experienced was true?

The point is, if someone believes something without proof or by personal experience for his own sake, that is totally ok.
If that someone insists that his subjective wordview, opinions, experiences, whatever should be shared by everyone, then people have the right to demand proof.

 

[tonyrey]

Can personal experiences be proven? How does subjectivity and experience hold to be true when it can not be tested under the scientific method or be confirmed by some proof?

If the vast majority of people have similar personal experiences there is a very high probability that they are real and not imaginary. We believe physical objects exist only because we have similar perceptions. We have direct knowledge only of our perceptions. We do not have to infer that our perceptions exist whereas we do have to infer the existence of everything else.

Of course our perceptions may mislead us but there is no reason to suppose everyone’s perceptions are misleading on every occasion. In fact scientific achievements prove that is not the case. It would be most remarkable if constantly misleading perceptions led to consistent results! Which goes to show that the highest standard of proof is to be found not in our inferences but in our perceptions - which explains the attraction of Idealism to philosophers like Berkeley, Schopenhauer and Hegel.

 

[JesuisSean]

If the vast majority of people have similar personal experiences there is a very high probability that they are real and not imaginary. We believe physical objects exist only because we have similar perceptions. We have direct knowledge only of our perceptions. We do not have to infer that our perceptions exist whereas we do have to infer the existence of everything else.

Of course our perceptions may mislead us but there is no reason to suppose everyone’s perceptions are misleading on every occasion. In fact scientific achievements prove that is not the case. It would be most remarkable if constantly misleading perceptions led to consistent results! Which goes to show that the highest standard of proof is to be found not in our inferences but in our perceptions - which explains the attraction of Idealism to philosophers like Berkeley, Schopenhauer and Hegel.

In my younger days I noticed that variable motion was absolutely impossible. Meanwhile, my eyes were telling me that cars for instance, were able to move at different speeds, and were able to stop at the lights etc.

But logic said otherwise.

MOTION contains Two variables. 1) Distance and 2) Speed. Variables range from zero to infinity, or in this case of course the variables range from greater than zero to infinity, since zero itself would obviously mean no motion at all. Now if we were to set both of these Variables to infinity, the outcome would be as follows.

** 1) Traveling across an infinite distance → To continue to travel without end.

1. Traveling at an infinite speed → To travel across any distance without the passage of any time. **

Note: If it takes time to get from point “A” to point “B”, this means that you can still move faster and use less time to get from point “A” to point “B”, therefore you are still traveling at a finite speed, not at an infinite speed. Only if no time at all occurs while moving across any distance, is the speed actually an infinite speed.

This combination of infinities produces a paradox because,

1) + 2) = To continue to travel without end, and all done without the passage of any time at all, or a more amusing version,
TO GO ON FOREVER, IN NO TIME AT ALL.

You can not have both a forever time period, and a zero time period, both present simultaneously in the holistic sense.

It became clear that this can only occur in a relativistic manner. A bit more thought and before you know it you come up with a complete understanding of what is really going on, and a tad bit later you can convert this understanding into equations that by no coincidence turn out to be identical to those currently known of as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity Addition equation.

Soon after that you understand the structure of reality suffice enough to understand exactly how Satan wished to take advantage of it.

Just because the eyes can not see what is truly going on, does not mean that the mind can not see the truth.

 

[tonyrey]

Just because the eyes can not see what is truly going on, does not mean that the mind can not see the truth.

That sums up the fatal flaw of materialism/physicalism in a nutshell!

 

[James_S_Saint]

It became clear that this can only occur in a relativistic manner. A bit more thought and before you know it you come up with a complete understanding of what is really going on, and a tad bit later you can convert this understanding into equations that by no coincidence turn out to be identical to those currently known of as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity Addition equation.

Soon after that you understand the structure of reality suffice enough to understand exactly how Satan wished to take advantage of it.

Okay, after a somewhat irrational beginning, you caught my interest.

Care to share?

 

[Thales]

The degree to which it has ability to compel someone to believe. This seems to be the goal of proof, personal testimony/experience, or written/historical documentation, in regards to discovering truth. Personal experience can fall anywhere on the spectrum depending on who is giving the testimony and who is receiving it, or whether it is self-evident. As the video suggested by liquidpele shows, some people are more apt to be convinced by others or events and some people are more skilled at convincing. A proof, like Leela suggests, is really just an overwhelmingly compelling argument, maybe not necessarily true.

How far up the scale can we go with say, collective experience, by a group of people at the same time, or some common experience shared by people throughout history? Collective and authoritative do seem to add a lot to somethings credibility.

Ultimately does any of this help us come closer to the truth?

How can it be possible to know the truth of a thing but not have any way to prove it? Apparently things can be true but not provable…or can they? If the value of a proof, is just its overwhelming ability to convince, but not necessarily correlated to truth, can we do away with the need to declare, “there is no way to prove God’s existence, the existence of ghosts, a soul, that I pet the dog last week, therefore it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen?”

 

[Leela]

That sums up the fatal flaw of materialism/physicalism in a nutshell!

Wait a second! Sean just argued that though the eyes see that things move he was able to determine through logic that motion is actually impossible. Am I to think that the fatal flaw of physicalism is that it makes us think that motion is possible while our minds assure us that it is actually impossible? This seems like a clear case where the eyes should be relied upon whereas whatever premises resulted in such an absurd conclusion should be questioned.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Wait a second! Sean just argued that though the eyes see that things move he was able to determine through logic that motion is actually impossible. Am I to think that the fatal flaw of physicalism is that it makes us think that motion is possible while our minds assure us that it is actually impossible? This seems like a clear case where the eyes should be relied upon whereas whatever premises resulted in such an absurd conclusion should be questioned.

I agree, Leela. I’m no physicist, but I’m quite sure that the premises in his original argument weren’t entirely clear. Neither am I clear how the argument proves that motion is impossible. Hey, Sean, can you “dumb this down” for a conventionally intelligent layperson?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Hey, Sean, can you “dumb this down” for a conventionally intelligent layperson?

Not so “conventional” it appears to me.

But regardless of the initial reasoning being flawed or not, I am more interested in the proposed continued reasoning and mathematics that “opened your eyes”. (if you would be so kind )

 

[Leela]

The degree to which it has ability to compel someone to believe. This seems to be the goal of proof, personal testimony/experience, or written/historical documentation, in regards to discovering truth. Personal experience can fall anywhere on the spectrum depending on who is giving the testimony and who is receiving it, or whether it is self-evident. As the video suggested by liquidpele shows, some people are more apt to be convinced by others or events and some people are more skilled at convincing. A proof, like Leela suggests, is really just an overwhelmingly compelling argument, maybe not necessarily true.

How far up the scale can we go with say, collective experience, by a group of people at the same time, or some common experience shared by people throughout history? Collective and authoritative do seem to add a lot to somethings credibility.

Ultimately does any of this help us come closer to the truth?

How can it be possible to know the truth of a thing but not have any way to prove it? Apparently things can be true but not provable…or can they? If the value of a proof, is just its overwhelming ability to convince, but not necessarily correlated to truth, can we do away with the need to declare, “there is no way to prove God’s existence, the existence of ghosts, a soul, that I pet the dog last week, therefore it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen?”

I think that the descriptions of our epistemic situation suggest that we ought to give up on the notion of inquiry as the search for truth since there is no way to measure our progress relative to that goal without already knowing what the truth is. Instead, we can view inquiry as part of our own self-creation. We don’t have to spend any time wondering whether our current practices conform to some transcendent standard that stands outside of our historical context. We can instead concern ourselves with whether we can come up with interesting and better alternatives to our current beliefs–ones that lead to more successful action. Our progress can then be measured in terms of what we can do that we couldn’t do before, what we’ve created that never was before, and the expansion of our circles of moral concern.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Wait a second! Sean just argued that though the eyes see that things move he was able to determine through logic that motion is actually impossible. Am I to think that the fatal flaw of physicalism is that it makes us think that motion is possible while our minds assure us that it is actually impossible? This seems like a clear case where the eyes should be relied upon whereas whatever premises resulted in such an absurd conclusion should be questioned.

Leela, my remark applies **solely **to his final sentence!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesuisSean
Just because the eyes can not see what is truly going on, does not mean that the mind can not see the truth.

That sums up the fatal flaw of materialism/physicalism in a nutshell!