Rational Proof

[wilberhum]

Rational Proof

I ask for a definition and example of Rational Proof. The answer I received was:
“Rational based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Proof evidence or argument establishing the truth of a statement.”
“Someone might think that there is no soul because science can explain all human faculties; all you need to do is point out otherwise with the example of coherent reasoning (see the latest posts in the thread entitled 'Atheism' in the comparative religion section for more info).”
I scanned all 39 pages of “Atheism”, believe me, I did not read all 576 posts, and I never found “coherent reasoning”.
But if I join Rational and Proof I get that in accordance with reason or logic it is evidence or argument establishing the truth of a statement.
Since I have a problem with logic establishing proof, I thought I would try the “Old Fashion” way, look at a dictionary. According to Encarta:
Coherent: 1. logically or aesthetically consistent: logically or aesthetically consistent and holding together as a harmonious or credible whole.
Reasoning: logical thinking: the use of logical thinking in order to find results or draw conclusions.
Rational: 1. reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice.
Proof: 1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something.

Now if I put coherent and reasoning together I get “logically and aesthetically consistent thinking”. That makes sense. I have no idea how it relates to the soul, but that is another topic.
If I put rational and proof together I get ‘reasonable and sensible conclusive evidence”. That makes me ponder.
I can have In-coherent reasoning, but can I have irrational proof? If I present rational evidence is that proof? I think not.

If after a storm, I see a fallen tree. I could come to a rational conclusion that the tree was blown over by the storm. But does that prove that the storm blew the tree over? Of course not. There could have been erosion of the ground below the tree and the tree was lopsided. It would not be the first time that a tree fell because of those conditions. Even if I rule out erosion and have no other explanation, I do not have proof that the storm had blown the tree over.

Since using a dictionary doesn’t seam to work, I thought I would go to the wed. Guess what the web found?
http://www.studentsofshariah.com/proof_of_creator.php
Proof of Creator
Although we are not relying on religious text, certain sections of the Qur'an have been included in this discussion as supporting supplementary material. However, at this stage they should not be viewed as a rational proof of a Creator.
//www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy/instructor/gloss/moses.html
Moses, Paul, and Swedenborg:  Three Steps in Rational Spirituality
by Dr. Leon James University of Hawaii
Moses, Paul, and Swedenborg:  Three Steps in Rational Spirituality
by Dr. Leon James University of Hawaii
Now He was in this world; now He is in the spiritual world. This is rational proof of the dual universe.
He also says “But with the Incarnation, the sensuous-rational mind had physical proof of God’s existence”.
[url]http://www.robharle.com/pages/kanda.html]kanda[/url]
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) arrived at what he considered to be the definitive rational proof of the existence of God
The writer also states:
I then critically discuss these proofs and show that they are not proofs at all, but at best, one possible explanation of a transcendent God.

Back to reality, no one can PROVE the existence of god. Only the totally indoctrinated believes he can. But any critical analyses of the basis of the proofs show that they are unproven. You can not use the unproven as proof.

It quickly becomes obvious that in the non-theistic world, there is no such thing as “Rational Proof”.
It is only a theist term to imply proof when there is none.
Wilber

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I ask for a definition and example of Rational Proof. The answer I received was:

Since I have a problem with logic establishing proof, I thought I would try the “Old Fashion” way, look at a dictionary.

What's wrong with logic establishing a proof, provided the premises are true?

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) arrived at what he considered to be the definitive rational proof of the existence of God

After Aquinas famous Five Ways of proving god's existence, he felt compelled by logic to outline five ways of proving god's non-existence, so that gives some indication of the value he gave "proofs" on the god question.

Back to reality, no one can PROVE the existence of god. Only the totally indoctrinated believes he can.

True. Remember that it's also impossible to prove god's non-existence.

It quickly becomes obvious that in the non-theistic world, there is no such thing as “Rational Proof”.

There are rational proofs in mathematics and logic.

Peace

 

[root]

I took a look and have to agree. Here is thier idea on rational thinking:

Animals today are still doing what they have been doing for millennia. As an example of how intelligence could be used in the animal world, we can perhaps look at something like Chicken Run, a recent popular children's film. The film revolves around a group of chickens owned by a farmer to lay eggs. When the chickens fail to lay a sufficient quantity of eggs, they are then slaughtered. In the film, the chickens are aware of this, and hatch a plan to escape. They apply intelligence to their situation by looking around and seeing what they can use and what they could achieve, and ultimately develop a plan to escape the farmer's clutches.

I nearly fell on the floor luaghing at this point.

In reality, we have never seen anything like this. Chickens on farms still lay eggs in their normal manner as they have done for millennia, and do not conspire about escape. They don't build tools and machines, and they don't conduct transactions with other animals. In the same manner, all other animals still go through life as they did thousands of years ago.

I agree with them on this point, but then again thousands of years are merely "chicken feed" in evolutionary terms.

There is no evidence of any progress. Therefore, we can safely say that we are the only species to actually possess this ability.

Perhaps they could watch "jungle Book" to see if they can discover any more "evidence" concluding that Allah gave all men the "Bear necessities of life"!!

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Wilber,
Rational proof is establishing the validity or invalidity of a statement through logical argumentation. Quick example:

Argument: All dogs are black
Response: But there is a brown dog
Conclusion: The argument that all dogs are black is false​

An example of rational proof of the invalidity of the argument.

Your example with the tree is inductive reasoning (some trees are knocked over by a storm, therefore this tree was knocked over by a storm). Deductive reasoning is an example of rational proof.

Regards

EDIT: Sorry for repeating what was already posted by czgibson, I didn't see the post.

 

[wilberhum]

Czgibson
What's wrong with logic establishing a proof, provided the premises are true?
If the premises are true, then you have the proof. But logic alone is not proof.
There are rational proofs in mathematics and logic.
I searched both documents, Rational Proof is not found in either.
Remember that it's also impossible to prove god's non-existence.
Of course that is true. If by definition, something has no physical properties, then it can neither be proved nor disproved. I believe in god. I know it is beyond proof. That’s the difference between Faith and Fact.

Ansar Al-‘Adi
Your example of rational proof of the invalidity of the argument is invalid because you can prove the statement with physical proof.

 

[wilberhum]

Rational Proof:
Two men were ridding on a train. One looked out and saw a brown cow and said “All cows are brown”. A while later the other man looked out and saw a black cow and said “See, you are wrong. Not all cows are brown”. The first man thought for a moment and said “All cows are brown, at least on one side”.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There are rational proofs in mathematics and logic.
I searched both documents, Rational Proof is not found in either.

What are you talking about? Maths and logic are rational by definition, and they contain proofs.

Peace