Thanks for your replies, everyone, appreciate that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
Sure. I'll first point out that using the term 'proof' in this manner can be a bit dubious in that we don't prove things in a rational context the way we do in a mathematical context. There is no formula where we punch in some values for the pieces of evidence we have to calculate whether or not something is reasonable to believe. Instead what we have are varying levels of confidence.
For instance, if we propose that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, we may begin with the evidence that it rose this morning. That gives us a reason to consider that it may rise again tomorrow. We then compound this with the evidence that it rose yesterday morning, and the day before, etc. This gives us a stronger level of confidence that it will also rise tomorrow morning. If we then add our knowledge of celestial bodies and planetary motion we become more confident still.
Can we agree that this is how rationality works?
Well, you want to be strict with the word proof in regard to very narrow meaning as in mathematics.
Suppose we use the word proof in all instances where people are looking for proof like in criminal investigation, in the courts, in everyday life, in the office, in the press, etc., in school, in the supermarket, in the restaurant, in government offices like the Internal Revenue Service, you get my idea?
So, the way I understand proof, it is the basis for certainty in our information of something, for example, prove to me that you have a nose in your face -- how would you and I prove to the person asking us to prove to him that we have a nose in our face?
In this thread I like for people to prove or disprove the existence of God understood in concept as the creator and operator of the universe; if you want to use mathematics, it is all right with me, but then I will have to do ask you what are the foundational premises of the mathematics you are employing to prove or disprove God existing, and also what is mathematical certainty.