Is everything Provable? AngelRo may have an excellent point

Post Reply New Topic

Prove it

The only systems where everything is provable are logically inconsistent systems.

Proof: Suppose an arbitrary proposition P is provable.
So is ~P
Hence P & ~P is provable.
The system is inconsistent. Q.E.D.

ruveyn

It's because I can't prove "proving something or proof" without "proving something or proof." If you can then show me.

Because the scientific method is self-supporting. We can see all the products of scientific investigation, the space program, computers, the steam engine, etc... That means it works.


Not all evidence is reliable. People can be fooled. That's why we have science, in order to compensate for our cognitive weaknesses. Even if I saw a miracle, that would not convince me of God's existence, since that is only one possible explanation (and the least likely). And we don't have any miracles happening such that science can investigate them. If your evidence is a story in a book, it isn't valid.


A time when people were extremely ignorant about the natural world. These testimonies should be understood for what they are, stories in a book. In order to take them seriously, one would have to test their assumptions.



Unlike religion, science is constantly testing it's assumptions with real life. Religious tests rely on observer bias, selective attention, and wish-thinking. Scientific theories are all theoretically testable. Religious theories about the existence of God are often unfalsifiable and can be dismissed without evidence. What few things can be tested, like the efficacy of prayer, have been shown to be false.

Last edited by AspE on 13 Jun 2013, 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, so one can't prove anything, let's say. What's the rational approach to take in this case then? Believe that Jesus died on the cross and resurrected from death few days later to save us from the eternal consequences of our sins? Or just accept what's much more likely based on the evidence we have access to? That he was a human like any other, if he even existed, and that when he died, he stayed dead for good but later embellishments occurred about him and now we have a religion called Christianity?

Also, why believe in God when you can just assume he doesn't exist since his existence doesn't seem necessary and isn't more likely than a mindless entity that infinitely brings forth random universes into existence via various singularities?

Not what I said. What I am stating is that in a given system not all theorems, statements, beliefs, etc are provable because some of them in a given system are presuppositions or starting points.



I was not talking about God or Christianity. I was talking about one of the things that is used to attempt to debunk Christianity and that is the idea that everything is provable. What I am saying is that is not true. It is not true that in a given system s that every theorem t in it is provable. It doesn't mean that nothing is provable. All it means is that only some things are provable and some things are not. Axioms and presuppositions are not provable and by the very definition of both terms if they are provable then they're not presuppositions or axioms meaning they are not starting points.

Proving x,y or z comes from the concept or idea of proof. Without this concept and axiom one can't prove. This is skeptics flaw. They're assuming everything is provable when it can be demonstrated that some things are not provable. Again, can you prove the concept of proof? I simply accept that one can prove things and I do prove things and have seen others prove things. There is no formula to prove proof. It is simply accepted as axiomatic. Christians believe in certain axioms or presuppositions without any proof of them.



Can you prove existence exists?

Axioms that make a lot more assumptions than warranted.

About your question of whether I can prove existence exists, as I said, I can't prove anything, but evidence shows that we exist, and I have no valid reason to reject this.

The universe exists, but why we exist is not something that is best explained by proposing God as there are better explanations for existence.

[snark]I see where this is going. Why not skip a few stages and arrive at the end result: Solipsism.

Yes, we have no certain proof of external existence.

Yes, even our most cherished scientific principles contain assumptions which cannot be tested.

Yes, we cannot logically dismiss the claim that reality is just a dream, that I am a brain in a vat or that we are all living in the Matrix.

Now please excuse me while I choose to live in the (perhaps imagined) world of humans, planets and pizzas rather than wasting my life wondering if the WP post in front of me is a figment of my imagination.[/snark]

I believe lots of things without proof. But proof isn't an attainable standard. The preponderance of the evidence is usually just fine, coupled with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I think I already mentioned something to that effect. Even if the solipsistic position were true, it wouldn't really change anything. So...back to the regularly scheduled discussion...