What Is Not Proof

This is part two of the article.

People talk a lot about proof, specially when it comes to the reliability of the
Christian faith. However, almost all of them think of only “empirical Proof” without
realizing that this is not the only kind of proof used in the world of knowledge.

In fact the empirical proof forms constitutes only a small part of proof, and the range
of methods available and used for evidence includes at least eight important
methodologies. In addition, most of them do not realize that the type of proof
depends upon the type of information under consideration, with empirical subjects
examined with empirical proofs and historical subjects examined with the help of
historical proofs.

There is another common problem about proof. Many things which the common
man (and even the learned ones ) think as proof or evidence are not proof at all.
This can be illustrated with the help of an incident.

Few years ago an Engineering
student approached me and told me that having read the Bible he received from me
a few weeks ago, he had now come to argue with me that God does not exist. I
welcomed him, offered a cup of tea, and asked him whether he would be presenting
philosophical or scientific arguments. He promptly opted for scientific proof saying
he preferred that because he was a student of science.

With amusement I awaited his arguments. He was silent for few minuets and then
said he can dismantle any augments I presented for the existence of God. I had to
point out that it is not I but he who came to demonstrate that God did not exist.
Thus he had to take the lead.

To summarize an hour-long discourse, I kept insisting that he demonstrate what he
claimed rather than asking me to speak and then refuting it. Finally he realized that
he was not prepared to do what he claimed and went away with a promise to
prepare better and come back. It has been two decades since then and he has not
turned up.

Many people, even scientifically trained ones, entertain strange ideas about proof.
They think that a thesis is proved just by stating it, comparing it, or by refuting
another thesis.

Proofs do not happen this way. If a person is able to refute all the
proofs advance by another person (say, for the existence of God), he does not
disprove the opponent’s thesis. He only disproves the opponent’s arguments.
However, those may not be the only arguments or the best arguments which the
opponent could have used.

Proof for any subject, (including the proof needed to disprove a claim) has to come
in specific ways. In empirical matters the proof needs to be empirical and in
historical matters the proof needs to be historical.

Though everyone talks of proof, most of them cannot distinguish between actual
proofs and mere arguments. Not every argument is valid, let alone a proof. With
this in mind, we list a sample of activities that people use as proof, but which are
not accepted as proof by any legal system anywhere in the world.

a. Refuting The Opponent Does Not Prove One As Right: Arguments come up
when there are two or more outlooks on a given subject, and each person tries to
establish that his position is right and that of the opponent’s wrong.

The most common strategy used is to refute the arguments of the opponent. Many
debaters are good at refutation, and they do an effective job of refutation, and stop
there. They assume they have proved their side of the argument, and many in the
audience also feel the same things, but actually they have not proved that they are
right.

They have only proved that the arguments presented by the opponent were
wrong. More examination by a disinterested party would be required to determine if
the arguments of the refuted side are weak, or whether only their presentation was
week.

If the latter is the case, then the basic arguments still remain unrefuted.
For example, let us assume that a person tries to defend the scientific accuracy of
the Bible using faculty arguments. Obviously, a learned atheist, rationalist, or
Muslim Apologist would be able to refute those arguments. But this does not mean
that they have refuted the Bible. Not at all. They have only refuted certain shallow
and unlearned arguments put forward by an ignorant Christian.

Muslim debaters worldwide use this tactic against the Christian world. They would
arrange a debates with a Christian who enjoys great name or position, but who has
never had any exposure to debates or apologetics. The learned Muslim debater
easily traps this Christian.

Since he is a man enjoying high position in the Christian
world, everyone in the audience assumes that he is at the same time highly learned
in Bible and theology. They go away with the erroneous impression that the Bible
has been refuted. What has actually happened is that a certain ignorant and
unprepared christian was silenced in a heavily loaded debate.

While refuting the opponent’s arguments is a necessary part of proving one’s
position, the actual proof takes place only when using the right kind of proof
(mathematical, logical, empirical, historical, etc.) he proves his point to the
satisfaction of objective examiners.

Just because a person is good at debating, and just because he is able to refute the
arguments of his opponents, it does not automatically follow that he has proved his
point.

b. Possibility Does Not Mean Proof or Even Probability: All effect have a
cause, and this is a foundational axiom of all objective investigation. However, a
given effect can often be caused by more that one causative factor. This creates an
interesting illusion about proof.

Very often people think that if the “possibility” of certain thing taking place is
shown, that it also proves that the event under consideration did take place
according to the possibility that was established. This is a great fallacy, and is not a
proof at all. Yet many people think that this is a substantial proof when in reality it
is not even a remote proof.

For example, in the Evolution/Creation debate many who wish to end the debate
ask whether God could not have created life through the process of “directed
evolution”.

Of course, God could have chosen evolution as a tool if that were His
approach. However, this “possibility” does not automatically amount to proof. We
need to have clear statements in the Bible that tell us that God did use evolution as
His vehicle. As long as such statements are missing, the possibility proposed by
them remains only a hypothesis.

Many things are possible at the hypothetical or even at the real level. For example,
since the Lord Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of all the world and therefore the
“possibility” for everyone to be saved has been created.

Yet we know that if is not
a probable scenario because numerous other factors also come into play. Thus
showing the possibility does not automatically lead to probability. And if it does not
automatically lead to probability, proof and certainty are far away.

c. Mental Experiment Is Not Proof: Humans have the special capacity to create
a vivid mental picture of reality. Dreams are but one example of such mental
creation of reality. Dreams, however are involuntary, while our concern her is with
voluntary creation of mental images.

Writer, painters, theatrical actors etc. liberally use this human capacity of
image-creation. Even technocrats and scientists use mental pictures to enhance
their work.

It is reported that the famous Benzene-ring in the Organic Chemistry
was discovered this way. Actually scientists knew that a Benzene molecule has six
carbon atoms and six hydrogen atoms, and that was the problem.

They were
unable to come up with a molecular structure which would satisfy the valances of
these 12 atoms. It was then that one of them dreamt a snake swallowing its own
tail. From here he extrapolated the picture and finally came up with the
epoch-making structure of Benzene. Organic Chemistry would not have made a
millionth of the progress had it not been for that mental picture.

Similarly, Alber Einstein, the father of Relativity Theory was very fond of mental
experiments and popularized it in the Physics community. Mental experiments are
frequently mentioned in MSc classes.

Therefore the trained as well as the untrained
often work under the notion that mental experiments can be used to prove or
disprove scientific truths. This is far from reality. Fundamental truths of matter and
energy can be proved only and only by experiments. That also, only by a
statistically significant number of repeated experiments.

Mental experiments are good for conceiving many scenarios, but no unknown
property of matter or energy can ever be discovered and proved by mental
experiment alone. A laboratory component to test those deductions is always
necessary.

A good example of mental experiments and its pitfalls is the Aristotelian
planetary system. The Greeks who developed this system did so strictly on the
basis of their mental picture, and came up with the deduction that the Earth is the
center of our Planetary System, and that even the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Subsequent to this, they forced the astronomical data to fit into this picture rather
than allowing the empirical data overrule every mental proof. Consequently, the
erroneous Geocentric picture ruled for centuries, in spite of the accumulating
evidences against it.

In the material world it is the empirical data which decides the truth. After all what
“is” should decide what “can be” and not the other way round. This is the reason
why no mental experiment in itself can prove or disprove anything.

d. An Appeal To An Authority Does Not Prove Anything: There is a famous
slogan that “when the proof is weak, shout louder”. The idea, even in jest, is that
suppressing the opponent’s faculties of reasoning are a standard technique used to
hide the fact that one does not have rigorous proof.

Everyone knows that with sufficient effort one can find experts to support any
school of thought, however bizarre that thought might be. Thus it is a standard
tactic to “quote” experts when one cannot advance proof.

We have already noticed that empirical topics need experimental proof, historical
topics need historical proof, and so on according to its own established and
objective canons of proof. if such a proof os available, then there is no need for the
“opinion” of people. If no proofs are available, then the opinion of people does not
matter. Yet people keep using “opinions” because somehow or other they wish to
establish their point of view, specially in areas not strictly controlled by empirical
methods of proof.

For example, people who love to dismantle the Bible (using history and archeology)
often quote this or that expert to “prove” that a given statement of Bible is false or
questionable. This is not the way of objective proof either ion favor or against t he
Bible. For each expert on one side of the argument, another on the opposite side
can be produced. Thus these opinions do not settle the matter in favor of either
side.

A variation of this technique is to appeal to popularity. This comes in the form of
statements like: everyone knows, everyone accepts, etc. Public acceptance does
not mean anything. What they embrace with greed today, they will rabidly oppose
tomorrow. Public opinion is based not upon proofs or objectivity, but upon a large
number of subjective and emotional factors. Thus public opinion can never be used
as a proof.

e. Proof From Silence Is Not Proof At All: This is a very important category of
false proofs, and the Bible-student meets it at every step of Bible, theory, and
apologetics. This means that “proof from silence” gets unusual weight, whereas it is
not a proof at all.

The basic premise of “Proof from silence” is that if something is not found, then it
does not exist. If I did not see a person in a particular place, he did not dome there.
If something is absent in a place, or if something could not be found in a particular
place, then it did not exist in that place.

Let us consider an actual example for clarifying this kind of arguments. In the early
chapters of Genesis we read about Camels. Radical theologians and atheists rabidly
attacked these passages for decades saying that archeologists did not discover
camels that early. Thus, they alleged conveniently that, these portions in Genesis
were not written art the time of Abraham or Moses, but a thousand years after the
purported event when camels were domesticated for the first time.

A few decades, and the presence of domesticated camels was discovered even
before the time of Abraham. So much for proof from absence of the arguments
which says, “we did not find it, so it is not true”.

The same thing happened with their argument that Moses could not have written
the first five books of the Old Testament because no written material from the time
of Moses was ever discovered. This argument fell miserably when thousands of
inscriptions from the time of Moses and before were found from Egypt and
decipher. This was followed by numerous discoveries that have extended known
writings almost to the time of Noah.

The mention of Hittites in the Bible was attacked in a similar manner. Since the
archeologists never found any mention ever of Hittites even till the close of 1800s,
the theological radicals promptly declared this a myth. Then in 1900s they
discovered the Hittite empire, libraries, and even the legal code.

There are a very large number of other things about which they argued against
based upon silence. All these arguments turned to be premature and hasty.
However, the radical mind never allows truth to distract them from their goal to
attack the Bible.

When proof or evidence is absent, the maximum that one can say is that “evidence
for the existence has not that “we have no evidence so it did not exist”. Nobody
allows the arguments “we have not been able to find a solution does not exist”. In
the same way, argument from silence cannot be used to refute or support any
viewpoint. Lack of proof is not not a proof.

f. Analogy Is Not Proof: On being questioned about proof of a matter, people
often pick up something that is similar or analogous. They then explain or
demonstrate this second thing, and imply that by doing so they have proved the
first statement. They have done nothing of that sort.

To prove that a given statement or thesis, proof should be given for that statement
and not for something analogous. A good example is the way people try to prove
the Theory of Evolution by comparing it with the sprouting of a seed and its growth into a tree.

While there are some similarities between evolution and growth, they
are not one and the same. The analogy does not prove anything. In fact, if
similarity is taken as proof dissimilarity should stand as proof for the opposite. Thus
in the hands of a skillful debater, argument from analogy can become a weapon to
prove anything in the world. However, sophistry is no proof.

g. Circular Reasoning Is Not Proof: Circle reasoning is a common fallacy, in
everyday and also in professional life. So much so that it even has a technical
name: “Tautology”.

A popular joke can be used to illustrate and explain Tautology and circular
reasoning. A lawyer examines the accused. Where is your hose? Opposite to the Insurance Office. Where is this Insurance Office? Opposite to my house. And where exactly are these two buildings situated?

They are situated opposite to each other.
Nothing is gained or added to knowledge by this verbal exchange. This is an easy
and illustrative example. Circular Reasoning was used by the Jewish High Priests
against the Lord Jesus. They brought Jesus to the Roman judge for condemnation.
Since the Roman jurisprudence laid down a strict procedure, the judge to follow the
path of:

Accusation -> Cross Examination -> Crime Proved -> Conviction ->
Punishment

But this time they wished to the “Punishment” to follow arrest. The argument was:
We arrested him, so punish him. But why punish him. Because he is a criminal. How
can you say he is a criminal. The very fact that we arrested him proves he is a
criminal, and so on. But when the judge examined Him procedurally, he had to
declare, “I find no guilt in Him”.

Circular reasoning, like the proof from silence can be used to prove anything in this
world. Worse, the vocabulary and presentation can often be iso convoluted that
even trained people may not be able to detect the error. A good example is the
“Geological Layer”.

Biology textbooks frequently mention what they call the Geological layer. They
claim that in many places one can find geological layers, with fossils embedded in
them. They also claim that the lowest layers contain fossils of very simple
creatures, and that as one goes up the layers, one discovers fossils of increasing
complexity, exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution.

On reading this in
biology textbooks, everyone goes away with the impression that the Geologists
were able to “discover” numerous geological layers, based upon which the biologist
make their claim. Fair enough. This is what they really claim.

If the same reader takes a little time to pick up an introductory textbook of
Geology, he will find the geological layer mentioned there. But, to the surprise of
the more observant reader, he will also find that there is no “real” multi-layer
structure anywhere in the world.

On the contrary, he will discover that, there are
many places with a smaller number of layers, which they use to create a theological
multi-layer structure (which does not physically exist in any place in the world).
What is most shocking is that they create this multi-layer structure, not on the
basis of geological data, but on the basis of zoological data, based upon
evaluations.

Here is the complete picture: the evolutionist says that geological layer show a
gradation of fossil-complexity. But the geologist says the composite he prepares is
based upon what the biologist dictates. In other words, both the biologist prepares
a multi-layer chart of what he expects. The geologist takes this up and prepares a
multi-layer composite. Then the Biologist goes ahead and claims geology proves his
theory.

Neither of them has done an “absolute calibration” or standardization of the scales.
On the contrary they have been perpetrating a seemingly empirical system, which
is based not upon empirical data but upon a theoretical expectation. Circular
reasoning of tautology is more common in the world of reason than what anyone
expects. Those who oppose the Christian faith also use it liberally.

However
claiming that “they are opposite to each other” does not prove anything.
h. A Theory Does Not Represent A Proof: Theory is an essential component of
of science and also of all the field of learning. So much so that researchers try to
find a perfect match between theory and empirical observations.

However, a theory is of value only after it corresponds with the reality. Till then it
remains only an unproved and unestablished hypothetical construct. Thus a theory
is not a proof. It only represents a possibility according to whosoever proposed it.
What’s more, is only one out of numerous possibilities. Out of all these possibilities,
only one can be right. At times none of the proposed theories will be right and all of
them will have to discarded.

Though theories are only unestablished hypotheses, people often present them as
proof or fact. However, they cannot be used that way. Coming to Christian
Apologetics, theories should not be allowed in any debate against the Bible. Nor
should they ever be used to support the Bible in any way.

i. Anecdotal Evidence Or Hearsay Is Not Proof: There is never any shortage of
people who try to establish their arguments with quotes and stories which are of no
value for proof. We also all have out pet ideas. And also pet statements to support.

For example, when talking about a certain debater, people would say, “he
presented three points, and ended with three questions, and the opponent fled the
scene”. Once this statement is repeated a few times, almost everyone think that is
truth.

Similarly, when it comes to establishing a pet doctrine, say the Tongues, everyone
will have a found story about a grand uncle or aunt who spontaneously broke into
other-languages. Then everybody argues over the genuineness of that story,
forgetting that doctrines are not established that way. Doctrines are deduced and
made sure with the help of a strict Bible-based procedure.

Just narrating favorable stories, incidents, or quotations do not amount to proof.
Each category of truth has its own canon for establishing truth, and nothing else is
admissible there.

j. Slogans Are Not Proof: Slogans are compact catch phrases that quickly grab
attention and lead people to immediate action. Evaluation and assessment of the
assertions, which is a essential activity, is often blanked out.

Slogans are powerful tools in the hands of advertisers, politicians, propagandists,
and mind-manipulators. Obviously, slogans are used more for suppressing human
reason than for a reasoned argument.

Yet they are frequently used by clever
debaters for winning arguments without using the due process of reasoning.
Unfortunately, the public is duped into thinking that this clever debaters won
because he has better argument using which he has established the points in his
argument. Actually nothing of that sort has taken place.

In the famous “Monkey Trial” in the USA, the Bishop Wilberforce in jest asked
whether his opponent Huxely was descended from a monkey on his father’s side or mother’s side. Sensing his opportunity, Huxely gave his famous slogan that “It is
better to descended from a monkey rather than from a dishonest theologian”.

The
slogan deeply hurt the reputation and standing of Bishop Wilberforce, not because
of its objectivity but because it was a powerful slogan at that juncture.

The anti Christian movement is good at coining bad-name associations and
mind-numbing slogans. However, anything proved that way is totally invalid ands
should not be accepted either to refute or to support the Bible

Christian apologists should be careful to spot and analyze slogans because they are
powerful tools in the hands of manipulators. Unless these slogans are detected and
analyzed in time, they can inflict much damage against the faith.

k. Philosophical Justification Is Not Proof: Philosophy is the result of man’s
quest to understand nature using his speculation, logic, and all the information
available from all the branches of knowledge. Since there is a very high component
of non empirical thinking in philosophy, the more the thinkers, the more are the
schools of thought that develop. Many of them look plausible when expounded by
proponents, but looks can be deceptive in Philosophy.

Since there is wide variety of philosophical thought available, anyone can any time
pick up a suitable philosophy and argue for his case. His reasoning will look
plausible, but be has not proved his point.

Philosophical possibility or explanation is
not proof. For example, when it comes to explaining difficult concepts from the
bible, many people immediately fall upon philosophy for offering an explanation.
Similarly, many radical thinkers use philosophy to refute Biblical doctrines. neither
of them is correct, not sufficient as a proof.

Bible-doctrines are to be explained using statements from the Bible itself. For
example, if someone wishes to explain (or refute) the doctrines of predestination of
trinity, he must go strictly by the statements of the Bible.

Philosophical speculation can always be used to defend or explain predestination,
trinity, the presence of evil, the problem of pain and creation/evolution. It can also
be used to refute the very same ideas. There is little objectivity and often there is
no empirical component. As a consequence, philosophical speculation cannot be
used as a proof in empirical, social and historical subject.

l. A Model Is Not A Proof: A model is picture (verbal or mathematical) with the
help of which researchers study complex phenomena or invisible entities. For
example, the atom has never been seen.

Yet we know many properties of atoms
and subatomic particles, and would like to know the subatomic particles, and would
like to know the precise way in which the subatomic particles are ordered in an
atom. many Models have been proposed, of which the planetary model in which
electrons revolve around a nucleus is known to all.

There is a range of models in science starting from the most simple to the
incredibly complex ones. The weather forecast is a good example where they input
the available data into a complex mathematical model that resides on super
computers. Using this they are able to come up with useful deductions most of the
time.

There are even models of human languages using which they try to study
language-style and other complex phenomena. The Theory of Evolution is also a
model, and there is a corresponding Creation Model. Model-making is an essential
part of scientific investigation, and each day the process of model-making is
becoming increasingly refined. As a consequence, people often confuse the model
with the reality. This is a false perception.

While models are being increasingly used in science, and while they are also
becoming increasingly accurate a model still remains a hypothetical and theoretical
construct. Thus presenting a good model is not equal to presenting proof.

A good
example is the claim made by some people in the 1960s and 1970s that their
computer-analysis have proved that St. Paul has authored only four of the fourteen
epistles attributed to him.

Many people took this to be a strong proof, only to be
told later that the deduction was based upon a totally inadequate and faulty model
of language. When the same test was given to standard and well-known books, it
indicated that their authors did nor write them.

Scientific Models are important tools for research and study. However, they have
certain sphere in which they are useful and valid. And use beyond that result in
invalid results.

Presenting a good model is not equal to offering a proof. That is not the purpose of
scientific models.