Prove it.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

As I was watching a video of a seminar conducted by Kent Hovind there came to me a realization. This realisation was one that I don’t ever recal being discussed in any discussion of philosophy of any kind.

Before you read the rest of this post I invite you to watch the video.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 6234&hl=en

Throughout his entire seminar, and this I’ll give him credit for, he states many point-counterpoint discussions regarding the struggles between religion and science. However there was one VERY obvious p-cp that he left out. And I can only think of two reasons why he left it out: either no one has brought it up to him, or he is afraid to bring it up himself (I think my vote will go towards the former seeing as how I myself have never heard ANYONE grant it floor time for discussion).

In a nutshell there is a need for this:

For someone to prove using outside, tangible evidence (meaning you can point to it and say “That’s it”) , that…

A.) the text that his or her religion uses as its “holiest” text was in fact dictated in any way shape or form directly from a being that is on the metaphysical level to which her or she says it is, and…

B.) that said text is NOT from every other possible source (the “other source” could be an arbitrary person with a random story that lasted thousands of years… or the “else” could be what a hundred monkeys sitting at typewriters came up with after a period of time in a room full of typewriters).

Until BOTH are satisfied and proven to the point where it would be impossible for NOT ONE SINGLE BEING ON THIS PLANET to come up with a logical reason to say “I don’t agree with that claim”, then by logic and reason said text is not worthy of discussion as a valid document of ANY KIND.

Every religion holds on high a particular set of words set in ink and paper (or any other type of textual media). Ergo, the text by which a religion’s word is conveyed must be proven as having come from a REAL PLACE OR BEING or it logically loses all merit.

There are those who claim that a text is without merit if it contains contradictions or if it is fallible in some way. Really and truly neither of those criteria matter. In all actuality it wouldn’t matter whether a deity in its text is contradictory or not. All that matters is that little thing called “existence.”

Prove it.

I beg you.

All those who claim the origin of a set of texts is of a being that is on a higher metaphysical level than humans: prove it.

Please.

2

Explanation
Proof
Agreement
Belief
Evidence

^
All of these things are double-edged.

“Science” is the systemizing, the materialistic, the mechanistic.

The universe is not just made out of “observable” material, systems and mechanisms.

I could, for example, demand that you prove to me that blackholes are actually a critical/super amount of gravity, density, mass, etc. But you could not prove this to me. You could only provide theory and circumstantial-evidence, for example.

Depending on what kind of evidence I demand, any idea can be either made false or true.

3 
This is obviously false, for a couple of good reasons. For one thing, if this was the standard of proof, nobody would be justified in believing anything ever, since thanks to philosophers, just about anything you can concieve of is logically not-agreed-with by [i]somebody. [/i] Name anything you believe that is even remotely interesting, and I'll name you a philosopher that has logical reasons to disagree. 
Second, I don't know if you believe in a God, but I bet at the very least, you don't believe that [i]you[/i] are God.  Taking that as a given, can you explain why people have this oath-sworn obligation to prove something [i]to your satisfaction[/i] before they are allowed to believe it? What if you're simply a better debater than they are, or stuck in eternal denial?

Oh, you know what, there’s a third reason now that I think of it. Since I am a human being on the planet Earth, and since I have given a couple logical reasons why I don’t agree with your above statement, your above statement does not meet it’s own standard of justification, and is thusly self-refuting.

So you want something proven to you? Proven is a state of mind of the reciever, not the presented. Are you the kind of person to whom this sort of thing could be proven?

4

Believing in something is not the issue at all. If you want to believe that there is a flying spaghetti monster, that’s fine and dandy. However if you want to convince me that such a being is in fact real and in existence, then you are going to have to provide proof of that.

For example… Greg and John live in an arbitrary environment on an arbitrary planet that is always cloud covered. Their entire lives have been spent under a layer of white clouds. Then one day Greg decides to venture out to some other part of the planet. Upon returning, Greg says to John “Dude there’s a bright and hot light source that shines light on our planet on the other side of the clouds! I saw it when I was gone and the clouds ended” Given John’s past, it would be reasonable for him to say “That’s ludicrous the clouds go on forever and they are eternal.”

“No I’m serious John the clouds end and there is something bright out there!” says Greg. At this point in the conversation, if Greg doesn’t care much about whether John believes him or not, Greg would drop it and just go on believing that there is a light source on the other side of the clouds.

However if Greg insists that there is in fact a light source, he has to prove it to John. Photoshoped jpgs, computer edited video, or even word of mouth from people who went with him are logically in error if they are to be presented as proof of the light source’s existence. Physical, point-to-able proof is required. Greg would have to physically take John to an optical vantage point that would allow John to see the light source, whether it be taking him above the clouds, or go to where there are no clouds. Keep in mind that it does not matter how financially, or physically unlikely a particular method of transportation is. All that matters is that the method is there and if they wanted to they could employ it.

This is how the concept of “Burden Of Proof” works: the party with extra information is required to show evidence of that information to the party that lacks said information. It would impossible be for the party who lacks the information to DISPROVE the information, in exactly the same way that it would be impossible for John to DISPROVE the existence of the light source.

Now let’s switch over to a topic that matters to our society: evolution science VS creation science. Each side of the topic has its own set of information to present. EACH side has the burden of proof when it comes to its own set of information.

However there is one major difference between the scientists of evolution, and the (typically) Christians of creationism. Evolutionists present their findings of skeletons of ancient beings and can and have traced the DNA of the skeletons, and have recorded the amounts of Carbon-12 isotope in the bone to find its age and can provide this information to the public at any time. All claims from creationists usually boil down to “The Bible says creationism is so, therefore it is so.” Which, by itself, that claim technically could be true, however the missing piece of the puzzle lies in providing evidence to support that the BIBLE is true. And I mean literally the paper, ink and words in it. You can not use the existence of something to prove its validity. Just because you “believe it” does not make it true.

Creationists could come back at evolutionists with claims of “how do we know you aren’t lying about C12 dating?” This is in fact a fair question. There is a very sure-fire way of proving something like this is actually true and that would be in having the Creationist who posed the question to perform the EXACT same tests and experiments on another sample using different equipment and acting totally independent. This is the nature of science: hypothesize, test, question, do it again if it doesn’t add up.

Now of course as of now it is true that an evolutionist can not come out and say “Look! I have discovered evolution-juice!” to prove his or her claim. However given the circumstances of the opposing side the evolutionist’s argument is MORE justified than the other one, because it has evidence that you can actually walk up to and touch and test for yourself, where as the creationist’s evidence is circular and self justifying. And just because one idea sounds like its easier to swallow than the other does not necessarily make it the RIGHT one. No matter how much you want to believe your child is chaste and drug free, that does not automaticaly make your child chaste and drug free.

5

How do you know this, Dan? Did you observe it?

You’re wasting your time in this forum, Airex, which you will soon find out.

Uccisore has been here longer than just about anyone else who still posts. In almost four years I’ve replied to him once. The only member who’s nonsense is comparable to Uccisore’s is Bob…who doesn’t seem to come around much anymore.

6

Ah… A very good question. Dan you made some assumptions that require some backing.

You can not just say to someone that you demand evidence for something just because you want evidence for it. Doing this shows a certain side of arrogance. You can only demand evidence for something that someone asserted. I never once said that “black holes are actually a critical/super amount of gravity, density, mass, etc.” You are assuming I believe this. Can you prove I believe it. Even if you could, that’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not I am trying to convince you of what I believe.

If someone says “I believe X…” fine. Who cares? When they add something like “… and you should too” then and only then can evidence be demanded. Burden of proof. Learn it.

Detrop, I ask that you please elaborate on what you mean by “wasting your time on this forum” because the way you have that worded sounds slightly offensive. How do you know what I want to get out of my time that I spend doing anything?

I believe that at the address which is widely accepted to be 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, in Washington DC in the U.S. there is a plot of land on which a building called “the white house” exists.

You are misusing the term “belief.” I doesnt matter worth a fiddler’s fart whether or not you “believe” something. If X actually exists, then “belief in X” goes out the window, and it gets replaced with “knowledge of X.”

Now if you want to get really particular ponder this. To “believe” in something can mean 2 very distinct things (maybe more but for the purposes for this argument what matters is that there is more than 1). It can mean something like a mother believing in her child that he or she will be a great parent. She doesn’t know for sure, but she believes because she wants that outcome to occur.

Then theres also something like saying that you believe the great pyramids exist. More likely than not you have not physically stood before them to see them with your own eyes in person, but you could if you wanted to. There are directions on how to get there if you desired to visit them. There are photographs of people standing on them, going in them, etc. But yet even though you yourself have not you’ve been presented with the evidence and you can choose to believe it or not. Not only have you been provided evidence, you have also be given instructions on how you yourself can come up with your own.

So when using the word or any form of the word “belief” choose carefully how you talk about it. I had an discussion about this with someone who said “Well you don’t believe in anything?” I replied with “Yes I do. I believe lots of things. For example I believe that the sun will ‘rise’ tomorrow. But I do not believe it based on blind faith or just because someone told me it will. I believe it because it has ACTUALLY happened before; many times, and it is very consistent. And because of that I have a reasonable expectation that it will happen again”.