Proof

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof! Christopher Hitchens

I have to admit I'm one of those that see proof all around me for the existence of something beyond our 'normal' ken.

('Normal' is another word that will be getting another huge overhaul with it's general meaning.)

Originally posted by 667joe
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof! Christopher Hitchens

Would that include “reality exists” ? (admittedly, to answer this question, you must first define what is meant by “reality” and what is meant by “exists”, which may be a lot harder than what you may think! )

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Would that include “reality exists” ? (admittedly, to answer this question, you must first define what is meant by “reality” and what is meant by “exists”, which may be a lot harder than what you may think! )

Around here it is!

"Mr Hitchens - I really want a cup of coffee. Could you make me one?"

"Prove to me that you want a coffee."

"Err, because I really do....."

"Nope, that is an assertion, not a proof."

"Err......."

"You are dismissed."

"God, you're a t@at"

"Prove it."

Originally posted by Rank outsider
"Mr Hitchens - I really want a cup of coffee. Could you make me one?"

"Prove to me that you want a coffee."

"Err, because I really do....."

"Nope, that is an assertion, not a proof."

"Err......."

"You are dismissed."

"God, you're a t@at"

"Prove it."

Apparently Quantum theory is starting to prove what the eastern mystics have known for millenia.
Is anyone more relieved or satisfied by this new proof? I dont think so.
It's like starting a thread on here: If you are looking for a ceratin response you are most likely to be frustrated by the way the others answer, as most of the more experienced posters on here have no doubt come to realize.

There seems to be some out there that need conclusive proof about the existence of *whatever* before they proceed. I guess we need people like that too, but I am not necessarily one of those. I'm just going to take others words for a lot of things and just put them in the "not sure" basket until furthur evidence comes along.

na

Originally posted by 667joe
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof! Christopher Hitchens

What is asserted with rigorous scientific method cannot be dismissed without rigorous scientific method.

Originally posted by 667joe
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof! Christopher Hitchens

What proof do you have for the statement you just asserted?

You don't want me to dismiss it, do you?

W. L. Craig argues that Evolution would be proof of the existence of God:

YouTube&feature=related

Is there an Atheistic Bias in the Media in the US ?

Some studies say yes.

YouTube&NR=1

Originally posted by jaywill
[b] W. L. Craig argues that Evolution would be proof of the existence of God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc&feature=related[/b]

“..YouTube&feature=related ...”

He says that the Creationist component is not a necessary component of Christian belief and most Christians agree on that -which I think is probably correct on both accounts.

But he then goes on to say that evolution is fantastically improbable and elaborates on what he means by this by saying that for humans to have evolved would have been fantastically improbably because it would have required ten improbable steps to happen and that means that for evolution to have occurred to evolve humans would be so fantastically improbably that it would have 'therefore' been a 'miracle' and therefore evidence for the existence of God and then the audience applauded very loudly to this thus showing both he and the general audience must have very low intelligence indeed for not spotting the obvious stupid flaw in his argument for his conclusion doesn't logically follow from his premise.

Let me elaborate; yes the odds of evolution having done exactly what it did and with that exact outcome (specifically, the creation of human kind in this case) of evolution being correctly described as “fantastically improbable”, but that's only because that is just ONE improbable pseudo-random outcome out of zillions of possible pseudo-random outcome each of which is improbable but collectively their probabilities add up to 100% probability i.e. it is INEVITABLE that ONE of those outcomes would have occurred thus there is no 'miracle' that whatever outcome happened is “fantastically improbable” because it is INEVITABLE that a fantastically improbable outcome would result from that process!!!

let me restate that in more generic terms:

if there is a process that will inevitably result in one of a zillion possible outcomes taking place but with each of those outcomes being fantastically improbable then, no matter how improbable the actual outcome, it is incorrect to call the outcome it actually gives a 'miracle' because it is INEVITABLE that a fantastically improbable outcome would result from that process.

Here is an analogy:

I can shuffle a stack of cards and deal them out and point out the fact that the chances of dealing out that EXACT order of cards I dealt out would be vanishingly small -one in a zillion chance. But that was no miracle because I still dealt out the cards that I did and it was inevitable that what I dealt out would have a vanishingly small chance of being exactly so. And, if I had dealt the cards out slightly differently, the outcome would be totally different but about equally improbable thus it is INEVITABLE that a fantastically improbable outcome would result from that process which therefore would not make the fantastically improbable outcome a 'miracle'.

Coming back to human evolution;

I can correctly point out that the chances of evolution doing everything EXACTLY it did and in the EXACT order it did is vanishingly small -one in a zillion chance. But that was no miracle because evolution still did whatever it did and it was inevitable that what it did would have a vanishingly small chance of being exactly so. And, if evolution did what it did even slightly differently, the outcome would be totally different (so no humans would have evolved in that case) but about equally improbable thus it is INEVITABLE that a fantastically improbable outcome would result from that process which therefore would not make the fantastically improbable outcome a 'miracle'.

Do you understand the above logic?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc&feature=related ...”

He says that the Creationist component is not a necessary component of Christian belief and most Christians agree on that -which I think is probably correct on both accounts.

But he then goes on to say that evolution is fantastically improbable and elaborates on what he means b fantastically improbable outcome a 'miracle'.

Do you understand the above logic?

Do you understand the above logic?

What are the odds of a creationist understanding it and objectively applying it to the "fantastically improbable" argument against evolution?

Have to say your card dealing analogy illustrates the flaw quite well. It's simple and straightforward. That said, you might want to work on equally simplifying the presentation. Seems like you're going to lose more than a few there.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Do you understand the above logic?

What are the odds of a creationist understanding it and objectively applying it to the "fantastically improbable" argument against evolution?

Have to say your card dealing analogy illustrates the flaw quite well. It's simple and straightforward. That said, you might want to work on equally simplifying the presentation. Seems like you're going to lose more than a few there.[/b]

I think you are right on both accounts.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc&feature=related ...”

He says that the Creationist component is not a necessary component of Christian belief and most Christians agree on that -which I think is probably correct on both accounts.

But he then goes on to say that evolution is fantastically improbable and elaborates on what he means b ntastically improbable outcome a 'miracle'.

Do you understand the above logic?

The creationist will skim read your post without understanding it but use the following (without surrounding context):

"I can correctly point out that the chances of evolution doing everything EXACTLY it did and in the EXACT order it did is vanishingly small -one in a zillion chance."

against you in future discussions 😛