What is the Proof ??
- Thread starter asadxyz
- Start date
- Replies 67
- Views 13K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
there is no "proof". "well in beer and math but thats about all"
however their is evidence.
we have actual writings from them. we have witnesses from actual contemporaries etc..
another important matter is that no unusuall claims have been made about them. There is no real reason to doubt them since their is nothign special.
Now if you were to claim one did miracels or fulfilled some prophecy ect.. and you only had acounts from people that were not witnesses then i woudl doubt.
of course it could be a world wide conspiracy, aristotal could have been the imagination of the third snail from the right.
Peace :
What is the proof that those writings are by them ??
What is the proof of their contempories existence ??
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
what is your point?
as stated amoment ago there is no "proof"
but a important thing is there is nothing unusally about them.
Hey did you meet my dad?
Why yes i did.
Oh did you now? where is the proof?
well i have a photo.
Is that him or an imposter?
Well i assumed he was your dad.
What if its the devil tricking you?
etc...
so whats your point.
I myself dont know for a fact that they, or you exists.
I have no proof of your existence.
You can not prove your existence.
However we can look at reasonable evidence
and im sure you have heard this before
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Peace :
yes this is what I am saying ,since there is no proof,no evidence of their existance,their existance is doubtful.Right??
By the way what is the difference between proof and evidence ?
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
it is doubtful but not reasonably doubtful.
Just a real rough explanation.
Proof is often used to mean proved 100%.
Evidence is stuff that is used to support an idea.
There is evidence that aristotle existed. Also there are no extraordinary claims made about him that need verification. We have many many works that are written by him "as sure as we can be" with other figures like christ there is little to no evidence that he existed.
While it may be likely that the figure of christs may have been based on someone is likely thats about all.
The typical evidence given for christ is the bible. thats it. Some references are made about him but only after the fact.
Peace;
All this is rubbish.If all this universe can come into existance without any creator,those small pieces of writings can come into existance automatically.Cann't you understand such a minor point ??So it is no proof or evidence.
By the way can you dictionary definitions of evidence and proof ??
IbnAbdulHakim
IB Addict
- Messages
- 16,476
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
that is because the disease in your heart doesnt want to accept, even if from reliable sources, that there is indeed a creator.
There is no God but Allah.
a real sickness, your posts really does sound like "i'll believe what i want, but not if it doesnt sound real to me, even if from a reliable source"
what ignorance...
It's not that simple, if that was the case everything would be doubtful in the past.
From what I am learning about evaluating claims made in history, one has to do some guess work and probability to arraive at a conclusion.
What Ranma is saying is, what would be the goal of someone to make these people up? At least that is what I understand from his point, if someone was made to be a prophet and did miracles, then we'd have to look closer, since this is more of an extrodanary claim.
Pynthanomai
Active member
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 3
Very little. There are several definitions for each (which you can find, for example, at dictionary.com); but their primary and synonymous definition is that they are the means to prove (or disprove) a thing as being true. The one comes from a Latin verb meaning "to test" (= probare), the other from a Latin participle meaning "things that are plain to see" (= evidentia). The latter ultimately comes from a Latin verb meaning "to see" (= videre). This last bit adds strength to the innate assumption we have that what we can see is a lot more "truthful" than what we can't - and things in the past much more easily quality for that category.
CptSunbeam
Rising Member
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 2
With regards to "proof", the only subject in which you may have real proof is mathematics. In the physical sciences, you have experimental evidence, which may be referred to as "facts", with which you may form laws and theories. However, according to the true definition of "proof", it only exists in mathematics.
It's obviously reasonable that Aristotle and Newton existed, even if it cannot be "proved" conclusively. In fact, muslim scholars built on the works of great philosophers such as Aristitle and Plato and ushered in an era of prosperity. Later on, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton built on the work of Arab astronomers and modern physics was born. All the "evidence" supports this.
As interesting a point this is, the title of this thread is not reasonable. There have been some truly interesting and informative threads from muslims in this forum section. This one qualifies as the least sensible, most ridiculous one of the lot. I'm not even sure what would be achieved if the premise could be "proved", however you define that.
It's obviously reasonable that Aristotle and Newton existed, even if it cannot be "proved" conclusively. In fact, muslim scholars built on the works of great philosophers such as Aristitle and Plato and ushered in an era of prosperity. Later on, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton built on the work of Arab astronomers and modern physics was born. All the "evidence" supports this.
As interesting a point this is, the title of this thread is not reasonable. There have been some truly interesting and informative threads from muslims in this forum section. This one qualifies as the least sensible, most ridiculous one of the lot. I'm not even sure what would be achieved if the premise could be "proved", however you define that.
Peace:
Let us change the word of proof to evidence.You said that "In fact, muslim scholars built on the works of great philosophers such as Aristitle and Plato and ushered in an era of prosperity".What is the Evidenc that "WORK" belonged to Aristotl or Plato??
Is this not possible that "WORK" came into existence automatically without any "designer" as this whole universe came into existence without any "Creator" ?
CptSunbeam
Rising Member
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 2
Why would you want that to be the case? I do not believe the universe had no designer/creator, and I do believe that there is secret knowledge locked up in the universe at a result. The ancient philosophers, the Arab scholars and the European scientists simply revealed that knowledge. The principia mathematica etc did not come from thin air, no matter who wrote them. No one has exact "proof" (however you define that) that Newton wrote the principia, but its a very reasonable conclusion. What would you gain if you "proved" otherwise? What would that achieve? And why do you view proof and evidence as interchangeable? If you check a science text (beyond school level), you will find that these are two different things, although that has no bearing on this discussion.
Peace:
This is the way the agnostics and atheists approach the problems.You do not have enough knowledge ,and think yourself intelectuals i.e Pseudointectuals.Is this some mental disorder (sorry to say) that you people only to know how to object Islam.
If you did not want to be addressed ,why did you enter into discussion.
You should have read my first post which is as follows:
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
Let's not. Apart from the most casual usage (as exhibited far too often on this forum) the words mean different things.
Simple real-world example. In a law court both prosecution and defence present evidence that the accused is guilty or not guilty respectively. Only one side can provide proof. Even then, in the event of conviction the 'proof' is qualified and has to be only 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's all that's realistic as, I suppose, it is regarding the existence or non-existence of God and such.
For an unqualified proof, there can be no doubt, reasonable or otherwise; as in the mathematical proofs referred to by CptSunbeam. I'd extend that a little to include classical logic (another word used far too casually around here) applied to philosophical argument.
CptSunbeam
Rising Member
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 2
I would encourage you not to accuse non-muslims of mental illness; this is not the first such occurrence. It is not a mental illness to exercise your intellectual faculties, regardless of how correct or incorrect your result is. Also, I was never taught "pseudoscience" when I studied at university, but genuine science. The trap of believing that "proof" is has the same meaning as "evidence" is commonly fallen into by pseudoscientists. Since you did not understand these things, you are certainly in no position to label a person as a pseudointellectual, no offense.
Additionally, I am quite prepared to object to other areas of human endeavour, not just Islam, so this accusation is without basis also. However, is this not a forum for refuting Islam? Here is a quote from this site regarding the function of this particular forum:
Therefore it is entirely unsurprising that every religious objector has been concentrating on Islam. Oddly, though, this thread was started by a muslim trying to get back at the objectors. Frankly, I'm still uncertain of the purpose of the thread. "Proving" the existence of such men in the truest sense is not possible, so such a question has no meaning. However, it is very reasonable that they did exist and produced their scientific studies. As another poster noted "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (note evidence). Since nobody has such extraordinary evidence, no such question can be posed, and only serves to create an endless confrontation, particularly when the author of the thread does not see the differing meaning of important words.
Peace;
Dear :
This thread was meant for atheists.If you are not atheist ,why did you poke yur nose in it.So simple question.The same modes operandi you did with the Quranic Ayaats in another thread.You took them out of context and posted them as Islam is a religion of terrorism.
If you are an atheist ,answer this question of the thread otherwise keep yourself upto your agenda for which you have been deputed.
Best of luck
CptSunbeam
Rising Member
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 2
Please don't take my following questions in the wrong way, but in a polite spirit:
What does the existence of Aristotle and Newton have to do with atheism? How would their lack of existence have any bearing on such ideas?
Does each member of Islamicboard.com get assigned one topic only, to which he must stick? Is there a rule that I must only post in one thread? Is this rule policed? Do human beings have only one "agenda" in all life matters, to which he must stick?
Do not the terrorists do that also? Am I not simply reporting their view of the Qur'an, and asking all muslims if it is warranted? Remember: "Don't shoot the messeger".
Do not try to prod me out of a thread. I may post unless the moderators decide otherwise. I have been repeatedly insulted and degraded since I joined this site, and if it continued I will not remain a member much longer. My own behaviour is not entirely blameless either, but I am doing my best, and I think I've learned how to be cordial, and most of my posts have been logical and to the point. Is it simply because I am a "non-muslim" that I am viewed with so much contempt? The other forums say that muslims are taught to treat other people with respect.
What does the existence of Aristotle and Newton have to do with atheism? How would their lack of existence have any bearing on such ideas?
Does each member of Islamicboard.com get assigned one topic only, to which he must stick? Is there a rule that I must only post in one thread? Is this rule policed? Do human beings have only one "agenda" in all life matters, to which he must stick?
Do not the terrorists do that also? Am I not simply reporting their view of the Qur'an, and asking all muslims if it is warranted? Remember: "Don't shoot the messeger".
Do not try to prod me out of a thread. I may post unless the moderators decide otherwise. I have been repeatedly insulted and degraded since I joined this site, and if it continued I will not remain a member much longer. My own behaviour is not entirely blameless either, but I am doing my best, and I think I've learned how to be cordial, and most of my posts have been logical and to the point. Is it simply because I am a "non-muslim" that I am viewed with so much contempt? The other forums say that muslims are taught to treat other people with respect.
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
I'm an atheist, though, although in my case that is not according to the broader definition that might encompass religion in general. OK;
There is no proof, although as there is considerable evidence that they did and (so far as I am aware) none that they didn't, that seems enough to go on for practical purposes.
You have still to enlighten us as to what the purpose of this thread actually is. I take it from what I quoted the idea is to show either that 'proof' is not necessary to believe in God? No atheist would dispute that for a moment. Indeed it would be stupid to do so from their perspective, as no proof for the existence of God has been provided and yet billions still believe there is a God the fact that 'proof' is not necessary for such belief is self evident.
There is, of course, no proof that God does not exist any more than there is evidence that He does. If you scan through posts from the atheists here you will see that as a common theme - none have ever claimed to provide a (sound) proof God does not exist. Now we have have the meanings of the words sorted out, what it comes down to is evidence. There is evidence both that God exists and that He doesn't and whether you 'believe' or not depends on which case you believe the strongest. Agnostics are those who haven't made their mind up.. a reasonable enough position.
Unfortunately, in this particular context, which evidence is found convincing is pretty much coloured by the position you already have. Hence evidence a believer may find convincing an atheist might find totally unconvincing , and the reverse is also true. So ultimately such debate is pretty futile, if not actually counter-productive. Again and again we see 'proof' that God must exist that is totally convincing to those who already believe he does and yet is (frequently) laughable to those who do not. And, again, vice versa.
There is no proof, although as there is considerable evidence that they did and (so far as I am aware) none that they didn't, that seems enough to go on for practical purposes.
You have still to enlighten us as to what the purpose of this thread actually is. I take it from what I quoted the idea is to show either that 'proof' is not necessary to believe in God? No atheist would dispute that for a moment. Indeed it would be stupid to do so from their perspective, as no proof for the existence of God has been provided and yet billions still believe there is a God the fact that 'proof' is not necessary for such belief is self evident.
There is, of course, no proof that God does not exist any more than there is evidence that He does. If you scan through posts from the atheists here you will see that as a common theme - none have ever claimed to provide a (sound) proof God does not exist. Now we have have the meanings of the words sorted out, what it comes down to is evidence. There is evidence both that God exists and that He doesn't and whether you 'believe' or not depends on which case you believe the strongest. Agnostics are those who haven't made their mind up.. a reasonable enough position.
Unfortunately, in this particular context, which evidence is found convincing is pretty much coloured by the position you already have. Hence evidence a believer may find convincing an atheist might find totally unconvincing , and the reverse is also true. So ultimately such debate is pretty futile, if not actually counter-productive. Again and again we see 'proof' that God must exist that is totally convincing to those who already believe he does and yet is (frequently) laughable to those who do not. And, again, vice versa.