the word prove means to me that it's beyond doubt
Yes, pleasant exchange. Thank you, too.
On the street, to prove something to somebody means to convince them that the claim is correct, and the standard is beyond reasonable doubt even if neither party knows that. That's what it means when a prosecutor says that he will prove such-and-such - beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing can have a higher endorsement.
If you want to resolve this issue, change your definition of prove to prove beyond reasonable doubt, or use other language such as verity, confirm, or demonstrated all with
beyond reasonable doubt added explicitly or assumed.
In mathematics, prove has a technical definition of no interest to you or this discussion.
I'm purty sure you would agree that verifying the theory (in some people's minds) doesn't mean the theory is TRUE
That depends what you mean by true. Do you mean the same as proven? If so, then you know the answer. Theories are never proven. If by true you mean demonstrated to be correct beyond reasonable doubt, the theory meets that criterion.
I used to wonder whatever did Descartes mean when he said, "I rhink, therefore I am." What, I thought? I'm not even going to try to explain it or analyze it.
He meant that everything else he thinks he knows might be a deception except for the fact that he is aware and therefore exists. That's where Descartes' demon comes into play. Descartes has no way to rule out that a demon is controlling everything he sees, thinks, feels, etc., but even so, he exists to be fooled like that. Descartes chose a demon over God doing this because he considered such a possibility a lie or deception, something beneath his god.
I have rarely if ever seen you give a complete detailed informative answer.
When you write comments like that one, or "Another example of your lack of knowledge and inability to explain," or "You're arguing from lack of truthfulness and knowledge," you are assuming that you are qualified to judge those things and that others agree. But that's not the case for somebody with an uniformed opinion. And perhaps you are unaware of what that means, what alternative there is, and how you and your opinions appear to those who have learned the science and can see that you haven't.
You also wrote to
@Pogo, "There are others reading your posts. Nobody sees any knowledge coming out of your posts." Disagree. I do. YOU don't, and that's the point, and why you shouldn't continue offering yourself as a standard for comprehension and knowledge. Humility requires that you recognize that and adapt accordingly. To continue offering yourself as a metric reveals a lack of insight about yourself.
There are three rungs on the latter. At the top is the informed, critical thinker. Next is the person who doesn't have that knowledge but recognizes that some others do possess expertise and knows to go to them for counsel. And then there is what can be called the Dunning-Kruger contingent, who aren't aware that all ideas aren't just guesses and are therefore as good as any other. This is the person who when confronted with the morbidity and mortality data on Covid vaccines can't interpret it, doesn't recognize that there can be experts who should be heeded, believes unqualified people, and when confronted with facts, says, "That's just your opinion" or "I disagree" without offering a rebuttal.
so do you claim that a world view that includes naturalism is better supported by the evidence than theism? (yes or no). if yes, then you have aburden proof
The way it is worded is that naturalism is the preferred explanation because it is more parsimonious that a supernaturalistic explanation, which unlike naturalistic explanations that only require that nature exists, also require the existence of a second kind of reality, one not in evidence.
There is no burden of proof with that statement. If one doesn't understand why an unnecessarily complex narrative is subordinate (but not said to be ruled out) to a simpler one that can also account for all relevant observation, then he is not prepared to hear a "proof" and there is no burden to demonstrate what he is unprepared to understand.
Have you seen the videos of drunks being arrested and asking over and over and over and over again, "What am I being arrested for?" There's no duty to keep answering when the subject is unprepared to assimilate the answer.
Well and what is wrong with the arguments commonly provided by theists………say William lane creig´s version of the kalam cosmological argument ? (o pick any other common argument)
You can find rebuttals of those arguments on the Internet. Craig's is called the Kalam cosmological argument. That one's pretty easy to refute:
Irony of the evolutionary belief
Here are the names of several others for you to explore:
- The Cosmological Argument. Everything that exists must have a cause. ...
- The Ontological Argument. ...
- The Argument from Design.
- The Argument from The Big Bang. ...
- The Arguments from the Fine-Tuning of Physical Constants. ...
- The Argument from the Beauty of Physical Laws. ...
- The Argument from Cosmic Coincidences.
- The Argument from Morality
And there is this from Aquinas:
- Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
- Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
- Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
- Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
- Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)
do you really think that things can come into existence without a cause?
We don't know that they can't. Yes, it's counterintuitive, but so is the only alternative: that something has existed infinitely into the past. You believe that about your god, correct - that it never came into being but rather, always existed, right? The same can be said about the universe or multiverse if one exists. It seems that something must have either always existed (including time) or came into being uncaused.
@ratiocinator offered
an argument against the latter being a coherent concept.
the point is that the age of the universe is likely finite,. (there was a first moment)……agree?
There appears to be a first moment of expansion, but nothing can be said about how long that seed existed before that began.
No. That was an entirely different idea that things like fleas and maggots could be spontaneously appear in the modern world from dust or rotting meat.
