Concept of Proof

Many discussions seem to lead to creation and then we end up going around in circles. So I offer this.

One person reads a book about dinosaurs that says they lived and died millions of years ago.

Another person reads the Bible that say’s Earth and everything was created 5000 years ago.

So one person says that dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago.
The other says no, God created the Earth 5000 years ago.

Both books are written by men, so who is right ?
Both parties turn around and say to each other show me your proof.

The person claiming the dinosaurs where here millions of years before man talks about???
Carbon dating, discusses the science behind it, the chemistry and physics of atoms. Then they talk about archeology and the dating of samples given their location in the Earths crust.
They then talk about astronomy and the astrophysics behind it showing that the universe has been around long before the Earth was.

The person claiming that Earth and everything was created 5000 years ago offers ???

This is what we talk about by proof, when we “the scientists” make a statement that we have proof behind us.
Where not going to get a book of Steven Hawkings and show you a hundred pages of pure calculus to support our claims on the age of the universe because that would be pointless.

But when you make a statement and we ask for proof what do you have ?
You can’t refer to the Bible as your proof because that’s what you’re trying to prove.

When we ask for proof of your claims, and you refer back to the Bible.

It’s like us asking you to prove 1+1=2 you turn around and give us 1+1=2.
That’s not proof, the proof for that is;

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its “successor” x’ is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x’ = 1.
P4. If x isn’t 1, then there is a y in N such that y’ = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x’ in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a’
(using P1 and P2). If b isn’t 1, then let c’ = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1’

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1’ = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn’t 0, then let c’ = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0’, and 2 = 1’. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)’
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)’ = 1’ = 2 Q.E.D.

Now hopefully by now we all understand the concept of proof, and what it means to prove something.

Remember that scientists don’t claim that everything is “fact” and therefore must be true.
We claim that there is strong evidence to support it.

Remember that if you claim something to be “fact” because it is in the Bible, you will be called on it to substantiate your claims.

This is what causes us to go around in circles over and over again on this same topic.

Also note that just because someone doesn’t believe in the Bible because there is evidence against it. It does not mean that the person is not religious and doesn’t feel that there may be some higher power. It just means that what they believe is “god”, is not as it is portrayed in the Bible.