Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"There is no proof God exists" and BoP

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.
Brad_Watson.Miami
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:24:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
GOD: the 'system as a whole'/the 'universal quantum computer'.
The world's leading quantum computer scientists (like Dr. Seth Lloyd of MIT author of Programming the Universe) have discovered that "This universe behaves as a quantum computer where particles not only collide, they compute... Information can be created but not destroyed, although it can be transferred."

Where there's a computer, there are programs.
Where there's programs, there are programmers.
Where there's programmers, there's an original and number 1 programmer...

God incarnate (ET in the Guardin' of Eden, Jesus son of Joseph, 2nd Coming of the Christ): the original and number 1 programmer / the Creator of all true Earth-like plan-its.

Reincarnation being recently proven by science (google that) must also be dismissed by atheists since they don't believe in any afterlife. Yet, I've seen many atheists at least listen to reincarnation data, i.e. the book Soul Survivor. Everyone would like to think that they will carry on somehow after this body dies.
GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good(7__4) Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).

GOD=7_4 algorithm/code produces Earth's 7 continents & 4 seasons, 4 lunar phases of 7 days (~7.4 days) each, Venus .7 AU & Mercury .4 AU, etc.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 6:01:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.


I rather disagree. Many scientists and philosophers are atheists who are biased towards any arguments for the existence of God. By "proof" I think is more meant "sound argument". Not necessarily like a mathematical formula.

Do you think that if there were proof God exists that most philosophers/atheists would be theists? I rather doubt it, since if we can't usually know something as 100% true, they'd always try to make ad hoc explanations.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

Is there proof for anything then? Because if people say "there's no proof God exists, but there's proof gravity exists" they're equivocating on the word "proof." In the first case they mean 100% sure that God exists proof, in the other case they mean good reasons to believe proof. I don't think that there is 100% proof that God exists, but I do think that there are good reasons to believe in God, just for the same reasons we believe in the existence of reality, other persons, that our rationality actually works, etc. etc.

Another point to make is that we can have justified true belief that something exists without having the 100% certain knowledge. Sure, maybe we can't have 100% certain knowledge God exists, but that doesn't mean we can have a rationally justifiable belief in him.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 6:10:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

Although I was referring to more the idea that people just assert thsi without ANY argumentation. And I was pointing out that there is a burden with making this statement. Of course, you're a reasonable fellow and you've presented an argument now, but yeah...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 6:16:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 6:01:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.


I rather disagree. Many scientists and philosophers are atheists who are biased towards any arguments for the existence of God.

An assertion that is
1. Unsupported/bare
2. Flat out false

By "proof" I think is more meant "sound argument". Not necessarily like a mathematical formula.

Ok.

Do you think that if there were proof God exists that most philosophers/atheists would be theists?

Most scientists are evolutionists, quantum mechanists, atomic theorists, and newtonists. So I presume so.

I rather doubt it, since if we can't usually know something as 100% true, they'd always try to make ad hoc explanations.

Shouldn't need to if the proposal of a God grants explanatory power with minimal assumptions like any good theory does. Ad hoc assumptions are a big red flag that a theory is bad, I myself as a scientist pretty much dismiss papers as garbage if I see multiple weak 'ad hoc' explanations to support the central thesis, or idea of the paper.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

Is there proof for anything then? Because if people say "there's no proof God exists, but there's proof gravity exists" they're equivocating on the word "proof." In the first case they mean 100% sure that God exists proof, in the other case they mean good reasons to believe proof.

Yes. But I thought we were already agreeing that the OP is off the mark.

I don't think that there is 100% proof that God exists,

Nor for anything else.

but I do think that there are good reasons to believe in God, just for the same reasons we believe in the existence of reality, other persons, that our rationality actually works, etc. etc.

Ok.

Another point to make is that we can have justified true belief that something exists without having the 100% certain knowledge.

Why not? Certainty is irrelevant to knowledge. It only measures the subjective confidence of a claim.

Sure, maybe we can't have 100% certain knowledge God exists, but that doesn't mean we can have a rationally justifiable belief in him.

We are off topic here.

I justified the fact that I can make the claim there is no proof that God exists, and that they have failed to meet their BoP.

You might not be happy with the justification, as it's is not a certain one, but it is a claim I can make with the same level of justification that there is no proof that Santa Claus, the Loch Ness monster or big foot exists. The reasoning is the same.

There might be a proof I haven't seen yet with both true premises and stricture, but I am justified in making the claim that no such proof, or anything approaching a 'proof' has come to light.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 7:15:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 6:16:08 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 6:01:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.


I rather disagree. Many scientists and philosophers are atheists who are biased towards any arguments for the existence of God.

An assertion that is
1. Unsupported/bare
2. Flat out false


I think I was more under the impression that most scientists were like Dawkins or the New Atheists, however I just looked up some statistics and found that actually a large amount of scientists are theists. Huh.

By "proof" I think is more meant "sound argument". Not necessarily like a mathematical formula.

Ok.

Do you think that if there were proof God exists that most philosophers/atheists would be theists?

Most scientists are evolutionists, quantum mechanists, atomic theorists, and newtonists. So I presume so.


I don't quite think that the analogy is the same, since a belief in God usually includes an ethical component, which is much different than just a change in worldview.

I rather doubt it, since if we can't usually know something as 100% true, they'd always try to make ad hoc explanations.

Shouldn't need to if the proposal of a God grants explanatory power with minimal assumptions like any good theory does. Ad hoc assumptions are a big red flag that a theory is bad, I myself as a scientist pretty much dismiss papers as garbage if I see multiple weak 'ad hoc' explanations to support the central thesis, or idea of the paper.


Zeno's paradox. Even if God ultimately explains the beginning of the universe or the existence of the universe, it seems you can always "divide in half" again and never reach God. So it seems to me that the idea of God is different than any other theory, since those try to posit the "steps" in between, and the theory of God does not.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

Is there proof for anything then? Because if people say "there's no proof God exists, but there's proof gravity exists" they're equivocating on the word "proof." In the first case they mean 100% sure that God exists proof, in the other case they mean good reasons to believe proof.

Yes. But I thought we were already agreeing that the OP is off the mark.

I don't think that there is 100% proof that God exists,

Nor for anything else.

but I do think that there are good reasons to believe in God, just for the same reasons we believe in the existence of reality, other persons, that our rationality actually works, etc. etc.

Ok.

Another point to make is that we can have justified true belief that something exists without having the 100% certain knowledge.

Why not? Certainty is irrelevant to knowledge. It only measures the subjective confidence of a claim.


Well I thought there was a difference between belief and knowledge in epistemics, but I could very well be mistaken.

Sure, maybe we can't have 100% certain knowledge God exists, but that doesn't mean we can have a rationally justifiable belief in him.

We are off topic here.

I justified the fact that I can make the claim there is no proof that God exists, and that they have failed to meet their BoP.


Ok then.

You might not be happy with the justification, as it's is not a certain one, but it is a claim I can make with the same level of justification that there is no proof that Santa Claus, the Loch Ness monster or big foot exists. The reasoning is the same.


You mean that *proof* for those things exist. I think we were talking about the evidence of something existing, not the thing itself existing. Which is of course, a completely different matter.

There might be a proof I haven't seen yet with both true premises and stricture, but I am justified in making the claim that no such proof, or anything approaching a 'proof' has come to light.

Okay, well, I agree that there isn't any 100% scientific proof. However, I think that we can make an argument that with our knowledge nowadays and out scientific and philosophical advancement, we can make a better argument for the existence of God than for the Loch Ness monster or anything like that.

I disagree with the whole idea of putting God in the "impossible to prove" section with Nessie and Santa Claus. The point is that there *are* many different arguments for God which vary in strength and utilize our scientific understanding. However, the majority of arguments for the Lochness monster seem to be based upon personal testimony.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 7:37:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 7:15:45 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/2/2014 6:16:08 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 6:01:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries

An assertion that is
1. Unsupported/bare
2. Flat out false


I think I was more under the impression that most scientists were like Dawkins or the New Atheists, however I just looked up some statistics and found that actually a large amount of scientists are theists. Huh.

You should walk around the biology/chemical research labs and talk to the people that work In them. You will quickly find that religious beliefs don't really play a part in their work and vice-versa. It's just the scientific mindset, occurs razor is pretty important for choosing explanations to research, you want a simple theory that explains a lot. God just doesn't enter the table for both theist and atheist scientists. It's irrelevant.

Dawkins is 1 person. Inductive reasons doing work THAT well I am afraid :-p

By "proof" I think is more meant "sound argument". Not necessarily like a mathematical formula.

Ok.

Do you think that if there were proof God exists that most philosophers/atheists would be theists?

Most scientists are evolutionists, quantum mechanists, atomic theorists, and newtonists. So I presume so.


I don't quite think that the analogy is the same, since a belief in God usually includes an ethical component, which is much different than just a change in worldview.

I don't particularly see so. It seems to me if God were to be found scientifically or philosophically, it would be a bottom-up discovery. I.e the bare minimum so scions omnipotent qualities first before anything else.

Since naturally those are the most basic components that would satisfy the required explanations, and as such don't really say much on ethics/worldview. I mean you should look at Einsteins' story regarding heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It heavily collided his idealistic worldview, but he did accept the other preceding very strange discoveries of QM (telling somebody accustomed to Newtonian movement that stuff moves at quantized energy levels is an enormous step whichever way you slice it).

In fact Einstein made probably some of the most significant contributions to QM because he contested it so vigorously.

I rather doubt it, since if we can't usually know something as 100% true, they'd always try to make ad hoc explanations.

Shouldn't need to if the proposal of a God grants explanatory power with minimal assumptions like any good theory does. Ad hoc assumptions are a big red flag that a theory is bad, I myself as a scientist pretty much dismiss papers as garbage if I see multiple weak 'ad hoc' explanations to support the central thesis, or idea of the paper.


Zeno's paradox. Even if God ultimately explains the beginning of the universe or the existence of the universe, it seems you can always "divide in half" again and never reach God.

This is more of a conceivability issue than an issue in the realisation of infinities, since the math works out just fine for such paradoxes. Hercules will catch the tortoise, whilst traversing an infinite number if steps and taking a finite amount of time.

So it seems to me that the idea of God is different than any other theory, since those try to posit the "steps" in between, and the theory of God does not.

God is convenient isn't it? Remember an infinite regress just means there is no beginning in terms of the universe, or a causal chain. And various theories of inflation for example end up predicting an infinite number of universes as a result. Depends on the theory of time though. Inflation is weird.

Yes. But I thought we were already agreeing that the OP is off the mark.

I don't think that there is 100% proof that God exists,

Nor for anything else.

but I do think that there are good reasons to believe in God, just for the same reasons we believe in the existence of reality, other persons, that our rationality actually works, etc. etc.

Ok.

Another point to make is that we can have justified true belief that something exists without having the 100% certain knowledge.

Why not? Certainty is irrelevant to knowledge. It only measures the subjective confidence of a claim.


Well I thought there was a difference between belief and knowledge in epistemics, but I could very well be mistaken.

Knowledge is by definition a subset of belief. Most philosophical definitions take it as justified true belief. Which seems fair, there are a couple of fun paradoxes you can find on wiki regarding that definition tho.

Sure, maybe we can't have 100% certain knowledge God exists, but that doesn't mean we can have a rationally justifiable belief in him.

We are off topic here.

I justified the fact that I can make the claim there is no proof that God exists, and that they have failed to meet their BoP.


Ok then.

You might not be happy with the justification, as it's is not a certain one, but it is a claim I can make with the same level of justification that there is no proof that Santa Claus, the Loch Ness monster or big foot exists. The reasoning is the same.


You mean that *proof* for those things exist. I think we were talking about the evidence of something existing, not the thing itself existing. Which is of course, a completely different matter.

There might be a proof I haven't seen yet with both true premises and stricture, but I am justified in making the claim that no such proof, or anything approaching a 'proof' has come to light.

Okay, well, I agree that there isn't any 100% scientific proof. However, I think that we can make an argument that with our knowledge nowadays and out scientific and philosophical advancement, we can make a better argument for the existence of God than for the Loch Ness monster or anything like that.

I disagree with the whole idea of putting God in the "impossible to prove" section with Nessie and Santa Claus. The point is that there *are* many different arguments for God which vary in strength and utilize our scientific understanding. However, the majority of arguments for the Lochness monster seem to be based upon personal testimony.

Personally I see God is controversially possible to prove because of the issues with omnipotence and necessary consciousness. Those concepts appear to run into problems of their own. Which is another reason why such a being would be very low on the list of explanations for a set of data. God doesn't invoke minimal assumptions, and it isn't clear that such a being is even logically possible.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 12:11:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

There is no proof that there is no proof that God exists. Maybe we will find proof in the future, the only thing we know is that we currently don't know of any proof for God's existence. That's all that matters. Have you really already encountered anyone who said there was proof for the non-existence of God? Everyone I've discussed this with, even atheists, agreed that God's non-existence cannot be proven, because we can't know that we know everything there is to know, hence why the burden of proof is on those who assert that God exists; that can actually be proven, unlike the other assertion.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:24:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

I always hate when debates focus on whether something counts as proof, since proof by definition requires the asserted point to be accepted. The fact that it is not accepted is the reason for the discussion in the first place.

I prefer to focus on rational justification because that steers the discussion in the direction where it should be... on how knowledge works and what mechanisms we use to attain it.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:29:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:24:00 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

I always hate when debates focus on whether something counts as proof, since proof by definition requires the asserted point to be accepted. The fact that it is not accepted is the reason for the discussion in the first place.

I prefer to focus on rational justification because that steers the discussion in the direction where it should be... on how knowledge works and what mechanisms we use to attain it.

I agree. Squabbling over "are there good arguments?" is stupid. People should just discuss what they think count as good arguments and determine whether or not they are sound.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:13:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles

Those who study the issue the most (philosophers), and are most familiar with the relevant facts to the issue at hand, tend to be theists....

Also, this:

http://www.amazon.com...

P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:26:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 11:13:38 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles

Those who study the issue the most (philosophers), and are most familiar with the relevant facts to the issue at hand, tend to be theists....

Also, this:

http://www.amazon.com...

That is completely irrelevant to the point... It's not what people believe that I that was talking about, but whether the theory/hypothesis/proposal was significant within the circles.

There are many theist biologists/physicists, but virtually no divine hypothesis makes the rounds in the journals/publications. Which was my gist.


P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 7:12:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 11:13:38 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Those who study the issue the most (philosophers), and are most familiar with the relevant facts to the issue at hand, tend to be theists....

Well of course. Someone who doesn't believe in God is less likely to pursue theology/philosophy of religion as a career.

As far as philosophers in general, I didn't read it thoroughly but this survey by David Bourget and David Chalmers suggests that around 73% are atheists.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:13:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

There isn't any proof "God exists" is not the equal and opposite statement of God exists.

It would be the positive stament that "God does not exist"
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:45:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

- Albert Einstein
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:52:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:45:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.


"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

- Albert Einstein

You are in a philosophy forum, and that's just a modus tollens, denying the concequent. We do this process intuitively every day, if a house is on fire we would expect to see smoke, if we don't see smoke then there is no house on fire. Etc.

In the same way it's how science falsifies bad theories, by taking a prediction (if theory is true, then not X), and seeing if they can find that falsifies it (X happened, therefore theory is false).

Same applies to absence of evidence where you would expect it to be if the theory (God) is true.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:01:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:52:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:45:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.


"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

- Albert Einstein

You are in a philosophy forum, and that's just a modus tollens, denying the concequent. We do this process intuitively every day, if a house is on fire we would expect to see smoke, if we don't see smoke then there is no house on fire. Etc.

In the same way it's how science falsifies bad theories, by taking a prediction (if theory is true, then not X), and seeing if they can find that falsifies it (X happened, therefore theory is false).

Same applies to absence of evidence where you would expect it to be if the theory (God) is true.

I don't any see smoke at this moment in time but statistically speaking it is highly likely that a house is on fire.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:04:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:01:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:52:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:45:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.


"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

- Albert Einstein

You are in a philosophy forum, and that's just a modus tollens, denying the concequent. We do this process intuitively every day, if a house is on fire we would expect to see smoke, if we don't see smoke then there is no house on fire. Etc.

In the same way it's how science falsifies bad theories, by taking a prediction (if theory is true, then not X), and seeing if they can find that falsifies it (X happened, therefore theory is false).

Same applies to absence of evidence where you would expect it to be if the theory (God) is true.

I don't any see smoke at this moment in time but statistically speaking it is highly likely that a house is on fire.

http://m.quickmeme.com...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:20:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:04:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:01:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:52:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:45:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.


"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

- Albert Einstein

You are in a philosophy forum, and that's just a modus tollens, denying the concequent. We do this process intuitively every day, if a house is on fire we would expect to see smoke, if we don't see smoke then there is no house on fire. Etc.

In the same way it's how science falsifies bad theories, by taking a prediction (if theory is true, then not X), and seeing if they can find that falsifies it (X happened, therefore theory is false).

Same applies to absence of evidence where you would expect it to be if the theory (God) is true.

I don't any see smoke at this moment in time but statistically speaking it is highly likely that a house is on fire.

http://m.quickmeme.com...

Actually I get your point and I just refuted your accusation that if a house is on fire we should expect to see smoke, my reply is that there is an absence of smoke from my perspective, yet there is possibly somewhere a house on fire. Thus the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:25:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:20:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:04:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:01:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:52:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:45:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.


"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

- Albert Einstein

You are in a philosophy forum, and that's just a modus tollens, denying the concequent. We do this process intuitively every day, if a house is on fire we would expect to see smoke, if we don't see smoke then there is no house on fire. Etc.

In the same way it's how science falsifies bad theories, by taking a prediction (if theory is true, then not X), and seeing if they can find that falsifies it (X happened, therefore theory is false).

Same applies to absence of evidence where you would expect it to be if the theory (God) is true.

I don't any see smoke at this moment in time but statistically speaking it is highly likely that a house is on fire.

http://m.quickmeme.com...


Actually I get your point and I just refuted your accusation that if a house is on fire we should expect to see smoke, my reply is that there is an absence of smoke from my perspective, yet there is possibly somewhere a house on fire. Thus the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are attacking the soundness of the premise and not the overall approach to absence of evidence. I should have been more explicit with my premise, but you clearly have taken it to mean something that it was not written for.

It's pretty basic logic.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:46:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:25:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:20:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:04:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:01:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:52:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:45:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.


"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

- Albert Einstein

You are in a philosophy forum, and that's just a modus tollens, denying the concequent. We do this process intuitively every day, if a house is on fire we would expect to see smoke, if we don't see smoke then there is no house on fire. Etc.

In the same way it's how science falsifies bad theories, by taking a prediction (if theory is true, then not X), and seeing if they can find that falsifies it (X happened, therefore theory is false).

Same applies to absence of evidence where you would expect it to be if the theory (God) is true.

I don't any see smoke at this moment in time but statistically speaking it is highly likely that a house is on fire.

http://m.quickmeme.com...


Actually I get your point and I just refuted your accusation that if a house is on fire we should expect to see smoke, my reply is that there is an absence of smoke from my perspective, yet there is possibly somewhere a house on fire. Thus the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are attacking the soundness of the premise and not the overall approach to absence of evidence. I should have been more explicit with my premise, but you clearly have taken it to mean something that it was not written for.

It's pretty basic logic.

Yes I am attacking the soundness of the premise, quiet right. Simply because the premise isn't sound. And it still stands that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We do not have any evidence for the existence of alien entities that can exist on other planets although it is speculated that it is highly probable we are yet to discover if we are alone in the universe or not. So we lack evidence of aliens existing but that does not mean they do not exist.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:58:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:46:02 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:25:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:20:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:04:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:01:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:52:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:45:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.


"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

- Albert Einstein

You are in a philosophy forum, and that's just a modus tollens, denying the concequent. We do this process intuitively every day, if a house is on fire we would expect to see smoke, if we don't see smoke then there is no house on fire. Etc.

In the same way it's how science falsifies bad theories, by taking a prediction (if theory is true, then not X), and seeing if they can find that falsifies it (X happened, therefore theory is false).

Same applies to absence of evidence where you would expect it to be if the theory (God) is true.

I don't any see smoke at this moment in time but statistically speaking it is highly likely that a house is on fire.

http://m.quickmeme.com...


Actually I get your point and I just refuted your accusation that if a house is on fire we should expect to see smoke, my reply is that there is an absence of smoke from my perspective, yet there is possibly somewhere a house on fire. Thus the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are attacking the soundness of the premise and not the overall approach to absence of evidence. I should have been more explicit with my premise, but you clearly have taken it to mean something that it was not written for.

It's pretty basic logic.

Yes I am attacking the soundness of the premise, quiet right. Simply because the premise isn't sound. And it still stands that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We do not have any evidence for the existence of alien entities that can exist on other planets although it is speculated that it is highly probable we are yet to discover if we are alone in the universe or not. So we lack evidence of aliens existing but that does not mean they do not exist.

It depends on the soundness of the claims regarding the consequences of alien's existence. It's much easier to do with God since god is usually defined as omnipotent and omniscient, so consequences are universal in scale.

The reason why aliens are tricky is because we don't know what to expect of an advanced alien race, we don't know what evidence we would expect to see, and therefore cannot make absence claims about it.

Moreover we have good pragmatic reasons to believe we would not be expect to see any evidence for them even if they did exist in some world. You can make the claim:

1. If aliens exist, then if I visit & examine every planet, I would find self-replication
2. I have visited & examined every planet, and did not find self-replication
C. Aliens don't exist

For the hard form.

I made the following argument in the 'Jesus is an alien' debate:

1. If aliens existed on Earth, abducting humans for thousands of years, then we would find advanced artefacts
2. We do not find advanced artefacts
C. Aliens do not exist on Earth, abducting humans

Both of these are evidence of a sense due to absence of evidence.

Going back to the fire claim, your not seeing a house on fire IS evidence of absence (albeit poor evidence) since statistically you have eliminated a portion of the total number of houses that could be on fire, therefore the odds of one being on fire after you have made that observation is less than before you made that observation (albeit only slightly less).

Of course the more search-space you address, the better the claim you have for absence. Alternatively the stronger the absence premise is, then the easier it is to falsify (like the Islamic claim of the moon being split in half).
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:44:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:58:16 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:46:02 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:25:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:20:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:04:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:01:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:52:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:45:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:51:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:08:08 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2014 5:12:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

P1) If there was proof God exists, it would be highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
P2) There is no proof of god existing highly significant within scientific/philosophical circles
C) There is no proof God exists

P2 we can agree on I think, P1 is a pragmatic proposition, and may or may not be true. I think there is justifiable reason to accept this premise to be pragmatically true, by comparing to other discoveries, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, atomic theory. All of these discoveries have their 'proof' well established/highly significant in said circles.

Therefore it is a justified statement to say there is no proof that God exists, even though said statement is not as sound as other epistemic statements. For the same reason I am justified in stating that there is no proof that string theory is true, it is a justified statement based on what is known within the scientific community, but it is not a statement I would make with the same certainty that there is proof that evolution/QM etc is true.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually it is, although that is besides the point.

1. If p then q
2. Not q
C. Not p

I.e if you expect to see evidence q that would result from the presence of p, yet don't, then it stands as evidence against p, especially as you address the search-space in greater depth.


"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

- Albert Einstein

You are in a philosophy forum, and that's just a modus tollens, denying the concequent. We do this process intuitively every day, if a house is on fire we would expect to see smoke, if we don't see smoke then there is no house on fire. Etc.

In the same way it's how science falsifies bad theories, by taking a prediction (if theory is true, then not X), and seeing if they can find that falsifies it (X happened, therefore theory is false).

Same applies to absence of evidence where you would expect it to be if the theory (God) is true.

I don't any see smoke at this moment in time but statistically speaking it is highly likely that a house is on fire.

http://m.quickmeme.com...


Actually I get your point and I just refuted your accusation that if a house is on fire we should expect to see smoke, my reply is that there is an absence of smoke from my perspective, yet there is possibly somewhere a house on fire. Thus the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are attacking the soundness of the premise and not the overall approach to absence of evidence. I should have been more explicit with my premise, but you clearly have taken it to mean something that it was not written for.

It's pretty basic logic.

Yes I am attacking the soundness of the premise, quiet right. Simply because the premise isn't sound. And it still stands that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We do not have any evidence for the existence of alien entities that can exist on other planets although it is speculated that it is highly probable we are yet to discover if we are alone in the universe or not. So we lack evidence of aliens existing but that does not mean they do not exist.

It depends on the soundness of the claims regarding the consequences of alien's existence. It's much easier to do with God since god is usually defined as omnipotent and omniscient, so consequences are universal in scale.

The reason why aliens are tricky is because we don't know what to expect of an advanced alien race, we don't know what evidence we would expect to see, and therefore cannot make absence claims about it.

Moreover we have good pragmatic reasons to believe we would not be expect to see any evidence for them even if they did exist in some world. You can make the claim:

1. If aliens exist, then if I visit & examine every planet, I would find self-replication
2. I have visited & examined every planet, and did not find self-replication
C. Aliens don't exist

False analogy since you haven't visited every planet you can not claim that premise is true therefore your conclusion is in-accurate

For the hard form.

I made the following argument in the 'Jesus is an alien' debate:

1. If aliens existed on Earth, abducting humans for thousands of years, then we would find advanced artefacts
2. We do not find advanced artefacts
C. Aliens do not exist on Earth, abducting humans

Same again .

Both of these are evidence of a sense due to absence of evidence.

Going back to the fire claim, your not seeing a house on fire IS evidence of absence (albeit poor evidence) since statistically you have eliminated a portion of the total number of houses that could be on fire, therefore the odds of one being on fire after you have made that observation is less than before you made that observation (albeit only slightly less).

Of course the more search-space you address, the better the claim you have for absence. Alternatively the stronger the absence premise is, then the easier it is to falsify (like the Islamic claim of the moon being split in half).

I think you just like arguing for the sake of arguing, I don't have a problem with that only I don't have to much time, but I remain un-convinced by you attempts.

Good luck in the future.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:31:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:46:02 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Yes I am attacking the soundness of the premise, quiet right. Simply because the premise isn't sound. And it still stands that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We do not have any evidence for the existence of alien entities that can exist on other planets although it is speculated that it is highly probable we are yet to discover if we are alone in the universe or not. So we lack evidence of aliens existing but that does not mean they do not exist.

You have to determine what the likelihood of having evidence for a given scenario is before you can determine whether or not the lack of evidence leads us to anything useful.

If aliens existed somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy we would not expect to have any evidence for it available to us here. The lack of evidence is meaningless.

If aliens visited Manhattan today in their starship enterprise sized spaceship then the likelihood of having evidence for it would be extremely high. A lack of evidence here is more than enough to conclude the story is false.

Your absence of evidence statement only works in the former example, not the latter.
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:35:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

When most atheists say "There's no proof for the existence of god(s)", what they mean is "Sufficient proof has yet to be presented for the existence of god(s)." If someone believes that there is no god, then they'll surely agree that there absolutely is no proof. If they simply don't believe(lack belief) in the existence of god(s), then they'll only agree that there isn't, at this time, sufficient proof for the existence of god(s).

What you've brought up is an example of atheists being sloppy with their words, nothing more.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:19:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

Seems a little pedantic. The argument they're making is that it has not been proved to them that God exists, so there is no reason to believe in him.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,092
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:53:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:35:25 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:27:58 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Many times atheists make the statement... "There isn't any proof God exists!"

However, isn't this a positive statement just like the statement "God exists" is a positive statement?

Thus isn't this just a shifting the goal posts fallacy...

Where is the proof that there is no proof God exists?

Otherwise, doesn't Hitchen's razor just destroy the statement "There is no proof God exists"?

When most atheists say "There's no proof for the existence of god(s)", what they mean is "Sufficient proof has yet to be presented for the existence of god(s)." If someone believes that there is no god, then they'll surely agree that there absolutely is no proof. If they simply don't believe(lack belief) in the existence of god(s), then they'll only agree that there isn't, at this time, sufficient proof for the existence of god(s).

What you've brought up is an example of atheists being sloppy with their words, nothing more.

Yes, most of the time they mean that they haven't personally seen anything that convinces them.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."