Thank you for introducing a very interesting subject.

Your welcome. Some people like Aveskde read the title and think to themselves "Congratulations! you've stated the obvious"

The statement at the top is obviously not so obvious to everyone.

Is your fingerprint "proof" that your finger touched the subject where your fingerprint was found?

It depends on the level of certainty I was after.

Your debate is merely a tautology disguised through synonym. You may as well have stated "Effectiveness consists merely of that which is capable."

It's meant to highlight the misconception that there is such a thing as irrefutable proof.

People generally speak of proof IMO in too absolute of a sense, as if once something has been proven that it somehow becomes irrefutable.

What's weird is that there's already consensus here in this debate that proof in the absolute sense is unachievable. Check out the opposing arguments. YOU agree with me that "proof" and "what is convincing" are synonymous. So perhaps you could help explain this to Zombee .

What do you think of her responses to this debate? Why do you think she disagrees with us that "proof" and "what is convincing" are synonymous?

Why would someone resist admitting that the lead statement of this debate is true?

This debate prompted me to try to better understand what constitutes a proof.

Thats cool.

Your responses seem well thought out. But my feeling is that your strong tendency to be contrarian is preventing you from noticing that the statement I started this debate with posits not a single thing out of line with your explained understanding. I find this very strange.

It happens often enough that contentious conversations occur even though there is no substantial underlying disagreement. For an opponent to interject with NO NO NO then proceed to explain the identical understanding in a different way (with different terms) is common in my experience.

I'll get on with the rest of your post.

If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C.

Logically, there is no way it cannot be true, therefor it is a proof.

Is that so?Ok so lets say the above logical preposition is about 3 water ponds, labeled A, B, and C

A is 10'X10' and a foot deep

B is 5'X10' and 2' deep

C is 2.5'X10' and 4' deep

Only If we're discussing surface area is your logical statement valid. To describe something as greater than requires that we refer to something measurable and agreed upon standard.

evidence is not proof and it never will be.

Evidence is called proof once it is thought of as conclusive. In other words if it's convincing. If we're talking about proof, we are inescapably talking about evidence and whether or not it's REGARDED as conclusive.

proofs are more than convincing, as I said earlier, they are irrefutable. If it is refutable, it is not a proof.

What can you present that's irrefutable?

I don't think there was anything standing out to me about Zombee's posts that I disagree with either. What I don't see is how the points she's brought up are construed to be refuting anything about my statement

science makes a clear distinction between evidence and proofs.

I'd like to read a clear explanation of that distinction.

No, because evidence =/= proof. Ever. Even if every piece of available evidence seamlessly supports a particular theory, it can never honestly be said that that theory has been proven.

I agree with that.....ironically I don't see how this (valid IMO) statement of yours refutes mine. As I understand it both our perspectives are based on what I see as a philosophically agnostic outlook.

When people ask for proof of a claim, they are actually asking for supporting evidence, because claims do not have proof, only evidence.

I agree.

Would you agree with:

Evidence is just evidence until it becomes convincing, then it's called proof.

it is always completely unfalsifiable.

I remain a skeptic of absolutist claims like that. They're involved in all sorts of excessive trust related problems.

Evidence will never amount to a proof, but different pieces of evidence may accumulate into a whole that is convincing.

I think that statement is evidence that you agree with the debate title/statement

Can I be credited with introducing this maxim? Or will someone put me in my place and tell me who has beat me to the punch?

No one wants to touch this one.......

No one wants to admit that the statement is truthful. No one can muster a challenging response.

This is serving to prove that my thinking is rather correct on the matter. :)

This is the way I see it. Religion (like it or not) affects our personality. It plays a key role in the development of a person's (or group's) value system. It has a profound effect on what we are curious about. Also what we are passionate about.

I am not inclined to study the context of the quote, but I believe it is unrealistic to discuss science and religion as being mutually excludable.

Religion influences what we study, Science consists of the most useful theories we have developed by applying the scientific method to those studies.

It can be I agree. But to say that is just what it is I will disagree. Religion is the ties you have to whatever/whomever you are devoted to. It is our ideological and thereby traditional culture. It can imprison the mind or set it free. If it is good religion it is sought out not advertised.

I think it is best, especially since most people agree that we don't know, to behave as if this was our only stretch. We need to make the best of the one life we are certain about.

"competition by definition must cause some degree of harm to the losers."

That is not true. I compete as often as I can. I gain more from losses than I do wins.

Buddhist philosophy is worthy of respect. However like all philosophical/religious constructs it is due criticism.

Here are my thoughts (starting with the four noble? truths?)

#1.Suffering and uneasiness can be beneficial. I don't think the avoidance of suffering is a goal that should be at the forefront of "enlightened" philosophy.

#2. I am not convinced that craving or attachment is the sole or even main cause of suffering. Certainly it is a component of many problems. I would say wisdom is in large measure the ability to let go AND hold on when appropriate.

#3. Right!? Don't desire anything and you will be freed from suffering. Enlightened Buddhists shouldn't swim under water then because while trying to conquer their desire for a breath of air they may drown. LOL

I have desires, areas of discontent, ie hopes. I am motivated to action by them.

My curiosity, my favored form of discontent which I cherish, would "enlightenment" quench? I hope not.

In my opinion they (desires) like everything else can get out of hand if left un-moderated or obsessed upon.

I think a better target for elimination (instead of desire) would be obsessiveness in general. But then there are even times where obsessing could be beneficial.

#4. I would say... Don't seek a teacher....ask yourself solemnly realistically and regularly...What do I want to make of my life? AKA What are my priorities

Now to the noble eightfold path (Buddhists have somewhat of an attachment to these no?)

#1. Understand that you CAN be deceived is how I would put it. Trust but don't take it too far you/they/it may fail - This would fall under the humility category

I am happy if the statement provokes deeper examination of things beyond initial appearances but I'm irritated by the wording in that it implies that we can completely avoid delusion. I think we must necessarily battle it.

#2. Isn't intention much the same as desire? If you intend to renounce as much as you can I sure wouldn't leave any of my valuables under your care. And intending freedom and harmlessness? I agree with those

#3. #4. #5. #6. Well I agree with that but that's not at all unique to Buddhism

#7. Blah Blah Blah

#8. I would not give a recipe for meditation and expect the recipe to work for anyone and everyone. The shoe that fits one pinches another.

Can you believe that Buddhism is one of my favorites? LOL