ahanu

In a book called Being Logical, Dennis McInerny writes a guide to good thinking. One step towards good thinking is to know that an inability to disprove does not prove. He writes:

"The fact that there is no concrete proof against a position does not constitute an argument in favor of the position. I can't claim to be right just because you can't prove me to be wrong. Consider the following exchange:

Dr. Willing: We are alone in the universe. I maintain that there is intelligent life out there in the vast reaches of space.

Dr. Able: Do you have proof of this?

Dr. Willing: I don't. But can you prove there is not life in outer space?

Dr. Able: No, I cannot.

Dr. Willing: Aha! That proves I am right!

Comment: Dr. Willing is attempting to close prematurely a question that remains open. Because there is no proof for or against a question of whether there is life in outer space, proponents of either side cannot claim that lack of proof for the position they oppose stands as proof for the position they favor."

LordOfGoblins

Proof is a bad word to use in religious context esp at mans current levels of maturity. THis is for a couple of reasons.
(1) emotions and bias is heavy (there is a dog in the fight so to speak).
(2) Solid Proof is often difficult or impossible in relating to abstract ideas or philosophy where the truth is filtered through a matter of opinion or perspective rather than an objective equation (for eg).
(3)There is no referance point to prove a final answer. There is noone 'marking the maths paper' so to speak to check the proofs validity as an arbiter between the two parties.

'Understandings' is better IMO.
What do you think of my points?

Essence of GOD

proof depends on complete knowledge of absolute truth, which no mortal possess.
therefore, your perception of truth may differ from mine.

InvestigateTruth

I would say An Inability to Disprove Does Prove in certain conditions:

For example, suppose, there are Only 3 possibilities for a certain explanation; A, B and C

Now, if A and B are shown to be disproved, then the only possibility that is left is C, regardless, if C cannot be proved.

For example, suppose, for a person who believes Jesus returns, there can be only 2 options; A: He Himself comes back from sky. B. He would be born from someone, but His spiritual reality comes from Heaven.

Now, if you can disprove A, the only option is left is B, regardless if you can prove B or not.

ahanu

So you're saying philosophical discussions can't provide solid proof, right? Could you give an example of a philosphical idea that can't provide solid proof?

ahanu

Sounds like a the process of elimination in a multiple choice test. I don't think this example fits with an inability to disprove does not prove, because you learn A and B are wrong. The idea is that we don't know the answer to A, B, or C, so there is no possibility for the process of elimination in this scenario. Nice try, however.

. . . Or do you disagree with my conlcusion?

LordOfGoblins

I think my post was just my frustration with ppl unwilling to listen.
Sure you can have proofs. Its just understangs is another way of showing a point where solid proof is unavailable..

ahanu

Are you saying absolute truth does not exist? Maybe someone will say that, if absolute truth does not exist, then this statement becomes an absolute truth. Maybe you mean absolute truth exists, but no person can attain it. Still, isn't that an absolute truth?

What makes absolute truth different from truth?

Example: Abdu'l-Baha did not board and travel on the Titanic.

We know this is true. Is this an absolute truth?

LordOfGoblins

THis is what I think.
It's not a religious statement so It doesnt qualify.
Anything measable to the world is limited and can thus be described absolutely but only in so far as in the physical way.
Statements describing the infinite are relative truths.
In a nutshell..

LordOfGoblins

actually its all relative and limited cos we just humans...

tonyfish58

"An Inability to Disprove Does Not Prove" Funny I would have thought that to be obvious? But I am a logical thinker, or so I have been told by most people I meet

To me there would be no way you could say "Aha! That proves I am right"!

Unless you were a stubborn Child maybe

I would also agree with LordOfGoblins as summed up by Ahanu "So you're saying philosophical discussions can't provide solid proof, right? Could you give an example of a philosophical idea that can't provide solid proof"?

Yes & The existence of God would be the first discussion that can not be proved, unless of course you do beleive

Regards Tony

tonyfish58

That would be the way I see it as well

"Such a theory will be based on the fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith that religious truth is relative.

The principle of the relativity of religious truth leads to a belief that any absolute knowledge of ultimate reality is impossible, so that man has no access to absolute truth. Bahá'u'lláh states of God: "Exalted, immeasurably exalted, art thou above the strivings of mortal man to unravel Thy mystery, to describe Thy glory, or even hint at the nature of Thine Essence" (Gleanings, p. 4). Consequently all descriptions, all schemata, all attempts to define the nature of God, are limited by the viewpoint of the particular person making them. All such attempts "are but a reflection of that which hath been created within themselves" (Gleanings, p. 204) Link - Religious Pluralism

Regards Tony

BruceDLimber

I quote the Baha'i scriptures:

"Such an existence is a contingent and not an absolute existence, inasmuch as the former is preceded by a cause, whilst the latter is independent thereof.

"Absolute existence is strictly confined to God, exalted be His glory. Well is it with them that apprehend this truth."

—(Gleanings, page 157)


Peace, :-)

Bruce