Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 07-18-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starbug

Can it? 'There is no X' is not that same as, say, 'X does not equal Y,' which is what I think of as a "negative." Even still, to say "There is no proof" may not prove a negative, but it does show that the assertion of something without proof is illogical.

I don't think "illogical" is the proper term, as beliefs are rarely going to follow from deductive logic. In the ubiquitous cases of Gods, Unicorns or Leprechauns, a positive belief would be more accurately described as "unreasonable" or "irrational." An "illogical" belief would be something like, "John is a married bachelor," because it is deductively true that married bachelors cannot exist.

Quote:

True, when an atheist spouts, "you can't prove a negative," it is a misnomer. Really, all that needs to be said is a theist has no proof of their god, therefore I'm under no obligation to believe.

Actually, what you can prove is often inextricably linked to definitional specificity, location, and temporal status. "There are no eight-foot-tall material pink unicorns underneath my bed right now" is a provable statement.

Quote:

But what about this:
Can the existence of the Biblical God be disproven? If the credibility of believing in this god hinges on the credibility of the Bible, then would discrediting the Bible disprove it's god?

Not unless you could establish the truth of some conditional, like, "If the Bible is discredited, then God does not exist."

Starbug · 07-20-2003, 06:35 AM

I don't really care to go on too much with this discussion, but felt the compulsion to note the last post:

I don't think "illogical" is the proper term, as beliefs are rarely going to follow from deductive logic.

First, beliefs and faith are very real things. I have faith my car is going to start in the morning. I believe, based on the evidence, that the universe is expanding. If you're speaking of religious faith, i.e. blind faith, your statement is correct. Regardless, I stated that the "assertion of something w/o proof is illogical" -- what the hell are you trying to refute, especially as i never mentioned religious beliefs in that statement?

what you can prove is often inextricably linked to definitional specificity

Duh, as long as you're using words, you have to acknowlege the specifics and limitations of whatever you're speaking about. But discussing whether or not a unicorn of sorts is under your bed (proving a negative) is not the same as determining whether or not they exist in general. Still, the fact that there's no evidence of their existence suffices to say "i don't believe they exist."

Not unless you could establish the truth of some conditional, like, "If the Bible is discredited, then God does not exist."

Did I not say, "If the credibility of believing in this god hinges on the credibility of the Bible?"

I just get annoyed at pretentious people who try to act like they're the final word on everything. And that's my final word

Philosoft · 07-20-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starbug

First, beliefs and faith are very real things. I have faith my car is going to start in the morning.

Do you really? Or maybe you just consider the probability of the state-of-affairs "My car does not start in the morning" so small as to be unworthy of consideration at some particular time?

Quote:

I believe, based on the evidence, that the universe is expanding.

So do I. But we're not deducing an expanding universe.

Quote:

If you're speaking of religious faith, i.e. blind faith, your statement is correct. Regardless, I stated that the "assertion of something w/o proof is illogical" -- what the hell are you trying to refute, especially as i never mentioned religious beliefs in that statement?

Settle down. My minor criticism had to do with the observation that a strictly illogical statement would be contradictory. 'Assertion without proof' is not inherently contradictory, so a term like "irrational" or "unreasonable" is a more accurate descriptor.

Quote:

Duh, as long as you're using words, you have to acknowlege the specifics and limitations of whatever you're speaking about. But discussing whether or not a unicorn of sorts is under your bed (proving a negative) is not the same as determining whether or not they exist in general.

Actually, it is the same, just the amount of work required to prove an existential negative (i.e. observing every group of matter particles that might possibly constitute a unicorn) is virtually insurmountable.

Quote:

Still, the fact that there's no evidence of their existence suffices to say "i don't believe they exist."

I agree.

Quote:

Did I not say, "If the credibility of believing in this god hinges on the credibility of the Bible?"

Yes, but reducing or eliminating the credibility of a belief is not equivalent to a logical disproof.

Quote:

I just get annoyed at pretentious people who try to act like they're the final word on everything.

What's the point of this? I am a participant in this thread, just like you are. Nowhere have I implied that my statements represent some fundamental truths. Around here, you'll find your arguments challenged far more vehemently than I am inclined to do.

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
But what if everyone else around you said that they saw it (whether they were delusional or just pulling your leg)? How would you prove that it did not exist?

Well, that's just the dilema of empiricism. Against what external standard do you measure your experience/perceptions?

Empiricists are mired in solipcism and all their truth claims are, therefore, meaningless; including their "negative" truth claims.

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Do you really? Or maybe you just consider the probability of the state-of-affairs "My car does not start in the morning" so small as to be unworthy of consideration at some particular time?
You're begging the question; probability statements about the futurte are meaningless unless you know that the future will be like the past

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xoc
"proofs" ultimately must rely on the perceptive or conceptive power of fallible humans in their psychology and reasoning power.

This all falls back into the old epistemological difficulties of Descartes. How do we "know" we "know"? If we can't judge our own perceptions and reasoning, how can we trust someone elses? Perhaps we alone see the truth and the rest of the world is deluded; or perhaps the opposite is true. How do we decide what to belief then, our own impressions or that of the world outside.

I think we ought to logically consider the experience of others as objectively "equal" with ours, and consider the old law of action-reaction; if people are "reacting" to something they perceive, there is some action that brought this about. Whether to tell whether people are lying or not is another matter, but a good understanding of psychology, the people involved, possible motivations and "poker-face" power(Liars have "tells", signs that denote they're lying, psychological pressure produces external quriks) should help us get closer to the truth.

There's only one problem here, but it is decisive; if you can't "judge your own perceptions and reasonings," you can't know that there is any "outside world." You can't evaluate "the experience of others" as equal or otherwise since you can't know that they exist.

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
I don't think "illogical" is the proper term, as beliefs are rarely going to follow from deductive logic. In the ubiquitous cases of Gods, Unicorns or Leprechauns, a positive belief would be more accurately described as "unreasonable" or "irrational." An "illogical" belief would be something like, "John is a married bachelor," because it is deductively true that married bachelors cannot exist.

There you go again.
Here is a perfectly logical, deductive argument for the existence of God:
1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
2. Something exists
3. Therefore, God exists.

More to the point, Transcendental argument, i.e., God and his revelation are the necessary presupposition of any knowledge, is a perfectly logical argument.

Not unless you could establish the truth of some conditional, like, "If the Bible is discredited, then God does not exist."

and just how would you go about doing that without assuming that God is not the necessary standard for all truth claims?

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 06:15 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
I believe that is a good refutation of the logical argument insofar as it restricts what the claim "cannot prove a negative" involves.

However, discovery of a point in space where something exists is too restricted and misses the issue. God is posited to be inaccessible save insofar as he wills to reveal himself. His will is inscrutable, so there is not only no point in space, there is no concilient place within our theory-systems for god. God-theory in isolation shrivels up and dies. God is dead.

This is only "true" of an unknown god; since God has revealed himself "and his will" in scripture, your statement is logically and factually false.

QUOTE]

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Little-Aphid
That's mostly true, except you can't prove that there isn't a brontosaurus in your backyard. It could be invisible. However, you can prove that there isn't a universally visible brontosaurus in your backyard, because if you can't see it, it's obvioulsy not there. You have to narrow down your claims.

You can't prove there isn't a tiny unicorn hovering infront of your face, but you can prove that there isn't a visible unicorn hovering in front of your face.

~Me.

Is this correct?

Isn't it true that all you can "prove" is that you do not perceive any unicorn, visible or otherwise. and, since your perceptions are untrustworthty, you can't really say anthing at all, can you?

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mark9950
to prove anything is by evidence.The court system of the US is based on physical or testimonial evidence sworn under oath.

There is no proof that God does not or does exist.

There is only ones belief in anything without proof of any kind.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
The US Court system is based on the assumption (derived from a Christian world-view) that what people perceive is a reflection of reality.
Because people are known to be faulty in their perceptions, multiple wittnesses are required to "prove" a charge.

BTW, that's why no one should ever be executed based solely on "circumstantial" evidence.

07-22-2003, 06:15 PM	#18
theophilus Banned Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,945	Re: Re: Re: Proving a negative [QUOTE]Originally posted by ComestibleVenom I believe that is a good refutation of the logical argument insofar as it restricts what the claim "cannot prove a negative" involves. However, discovery of a point in space where something exists is too restricted and misses the issue. God is posited to be inaccessible save insofar as he wills to reveal himself. His will is inscrutable, so there is not only no point in space, there is no concilient place within our theory-systems for god. God-theory in isolation shrivels up and dies. God is dead. This is only "true" of an unknown god; since God has revealed himself "and his will" in scripture, your statement is logically and factually false. QUOTE]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2003, 06:35 AM	#12
Starbug Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Paden City, WV Posts: 48	I don't really care to go on too much with this discussion, but felt the compulsion to note the last post: I don't think "illogical" is the proper term, as beliefs are rarely going to follow from deductive logic. First, beliefs and faith are very real things. I have faith my car is going to start in the morning. I believe, based on the evidence, that the universe is expanding. If you're speaking of religious faith, i.e. blind faith, your statement is correct. Regardless, I stated that the "assertion of something w/o proof is illogical" -- what the hell are you trying to refute, especially as i never mentioned religious beliefs in that statement? what you can prove is often inextricably linked to definitional specificity Duh, as long as you're using words, you have to acknowlege the specifics and limitations of whatever you're speaking about. But discussing whether or not a unicorn of sorts is under your bed (proving a negative) is not the same as determining whether or not they exist in general. Still, the fact that there's no evidence of their existence suffices to say "i don't believe they exist." Not unless you could establish the truth of some conditional, like, "If the Bible is discredited, then God does not exist." Did I not say, "If the credibility of believing in this god hinges on the credibility of the Bible?" I just get annoyed at pretentious people who try to act like they're the final word on everything. And that's my final word

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.