English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If so, then what good is a proof?

See here for context:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuEuRBgx8xAfEPA13KbritXzy6IX?qid=20060907110741AA4uxPW

Scroll down to Rob.

2006-09-07 07:13:54 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

15 answers

i didnt ask for proof I already KNOw the Lord.... Im just answering questions Links invite spam

2006-09-07 07:16:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yes as follows.

The following reference material (from Google) requires a very intellectual and philosophical mind to digest and understand, but by all means read and ponder.

Google “Brains in a vat” for the latest reference material.

It basically suggests and refutes that we (you or anyone) are just brains in a vat connected to a super-computer because we are able to ask the question “are we just brains in a vat” or “I think, therefore I am”. Unfortunately the theory is flawed because it assumes we are dealing with human terms, human logic and human brains in a vat, but that may not be the case.

It is possible that everything we think, feel, touch, hear, believe, sense, taste, smell, you name it is in fact virtual, and everything science or religion puts forward is virtual. It is possible that all the troubles in the world are virtual. It is possible that the universe is virtual, and therefore the intelligence (you) in a vat will never know the answers to anything in our world or universe.

It’s possible that we (you, me, everyone) are some form of intelligence in a vat, and therefore we are virtual and don't exist in the form or manner that we believe we do. It is possible that we may not even be human. Should this state (brains in a vat) truly exist then you would be unable to prove to anyone through any medium that you exist in the first place, but it does raise the possibility that we requested to be in this state for some unknown reason. Perhaps to learn or experience something.

What I like about the above theory, is that is that it offers a possible way for everyone to be correct. For believers and non-believers to be correct, for science and religion to be correct, for hurt and happiness to make sense. Namely, none of these situations really exist in the first place. Everything is virtual for an unknown reason.

Human intelligence as we understand it, could be intelligence controlled by a higher intelligence in another dimension. and everything we think and believe to be true is virtual. Such a possibility would account for all the madness that seems so prolific in humanity, but leave open an obvious curious question – “Why would we request such a state or be put into such a state”.

2006-09-07 14:20:24 · answer #2 · answered by Brenda's World 4 · 0 0

In logical proofs, no. But in the nomological sense of the word 'proof'. Yes. Nomological proofs are contingent and can sometimes be refuted by new knowledge.

If something has been nomologically proven, then the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic to provide that missing evidence that disproves it. Rob's point I think is that the burdon of proof still lies on those making the claim, as they have not provided any credible supporting evidence for it.

You ask dozens of these types of questions. Don't you know that inductive reasoning is not the same as formal logic?

2006-09-07 14:20:04 · answer #3 · answered by lenny 7 · 0 0

Yes it can Will. In Science, we are continually finding new and improved methods of testing and proving theories. It is fluid and unafraid to admit it was wrong. Truth is simply based on analysis to the best of our ability with the give technology and evidence.

2006-09-07 21:13:27 · answer #4 · answered by Helzabet 6 · 0 0

When the "proven" or the "proof" is flawed. Yes!
Can you say, "DNA"?
How many convictions were "proven" in courts? And have been "disproved".

There may be other cases as technology progresses.

2006-09-07 14:24:39 · answer #5 · answered by ed 7 · 0 0

Proof is sometimes just a perception and not the fact. In such cases, reality overcomes perception with time. Then, which has been prooved becomes disprooved.

2006-09-07 14:21:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Any proof can be disproven along with the proof that proves it. Think about it.

2006-09-07 14:22:54 · answer #7 · answered by mrgoodbar 3 · 0 0

No, nothing can be proven then disproven. If it is proven with temporary conditions, it can change later though.

2006-09-07 14:19:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Some times, however scientists disprove their own theories all the time. This can't be said of fundamentalists.
Tammi Dee

2006-09-07 14:19:56 · answer #9 · answered by tammidee10 6 · 0 0

i can prove the sun goes round the earth
look up

now i can disprove that,

email me when you have a telescope
darwin_spartacus@yahoo.com

obviously you won't email me, you haven't in the past, just keep going with your questions, we used to instant message that was fun, we agree on most points,

ok,
so, *obviously* the earth goes round the sun, its in orbit around the sun

2006-09-07 14:27:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers