yguy

Not outright, but it appears to follow ineluctably from the proposition that things which exist can be detected by an inanimate device.

Umm...the existence of gamma rays before their detection?

Only if we are aware of how it affects reality.

If a tree falls in the forest and you're too stoned to hear anything, does it make a sound?

mosaic

I'll just jump in to say I dont understand how gamma rays being detected at a later time disproves the idea that if things exist they can de detected.

The proposition was never things dont exist until they are detected but if they have the property of existence, they can be. The tree analogy is weak also. If I see the tree fall but cant hear it, I still know how it affects reality. That is, I intuitively know it will make a sound, break other trees, cause animals to scatter, etc. Not hearing a tree make a sound doesnt make you obvlious to the effects it has when it falls.

yguy

Gamma rays were not detectable by those methods available to science hundreds of years ago. Neither is God detectable by methods available to and accepted by the scientific community today.

If X exists, it can be detected, right? Therefore, if X cannot be detected, it cannot exist. How exactly do we determine whether X can be detected? If the answer is that it can be detected because it exists, we have a circular argument; so just how do we know that X is detectable? It appears that we must first know whether it exists. Therefore if we don't know it exists, it is not detectable, and therefore does not exist.

Right?

No, but it does make you oblivious to the sound it makes, which is the point in question, not the existence of the other effects.

Hawkingfan

Which is exactly why it is unreasonable to believe god exists. A hundred years ago, it was possible to come up with a theory concerning gamma rays. A theory that made scientific sense. What theory is there for god that makes scientific sense? Is there math to support it?

Nowhere357

In what way does it inevitably follow?

What reason is there to believe that something can exist yet not be detected?

I suspected that may be part of the problem - kudos for asking the "question", then.

I have not said "... is currently detectable."

I said "... can be detected."

As in "... in theory, one day, we can detect it."

We would detect the changes in reality which cannot be explained using current (at the time) understanding of reality.

Depends on how you define the word "sound". Vibrations in the air (mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing) - of course a falling tree makes a sound, whether I'm stoned or not. As in "a conscious awareness of aural input" (the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing) then no, my conscious awareness is too busy at the time.

How does that help here? The sound exists yet goes undetected? But the sound could be detected, which is all that my position requires.

Omniscience is not required to understand that if something exists, it can be detected.

I had asked a question, which you ignored. Perhaps you thought it was rhetorical - it wasn't, so I'll restate the question:

This is BASIC REALITY 101 stuff. Are you just being contrary and stubborn, or are you really unaware of this?

Demigawd

The weakness of this comparison is that hundreds of years ago, nobody postulated that gamma rays existed, regardless of whether or not anyone was able to detect them. No political power was dependent on belief in gamma rays. No class of priests found employment by virtue of explaining the will of gamma rays. No one was ever burned at the stake for not believing in gamma rays.

Gamma rays are an observable part of the universe discovered by accident. God is a social construct utilized to keep certain people in power and the rest as subordinates.

Nowhere357

Wrong.

I draw your attention to the part which, well, draws your attention:

Holy cow, yguy, if something exists, it can be detected.

After all, if something exists yet doesn't affect reality, it is EXACTLY THE SAME as if it didn't exist!

And if something affects reality, we can detect it! That's what the words mean!

yguy

Why? Where exactly does the logic break down? Which premise is false, or where is the nonsequitur in my reasoning?

Yeah, so I've heard.

But you still haven't told me how, if we don't know a thing exists, we can see that it affects reality.

No, if we can SEE that something affects reality, we can detect it.

BTW, if you are looking for the guy who is swayed by repetitive assertions presented in large boldface font, that would not be me.

Dr Rick

Right here:

This is the fallacy of accent in which the possible object of the word "cannot" is implicitly shifted with Just because something is not detectable to a particular observer doesn't mean it's impossible to detect. The word "cannot" could mean that, but it can also be a reference to the limitations of the observer. The "impossible to detect" re-characterization refers to a trait of the thing, alone, however, and means that it cannot be detected by any means by anyone unless further qualified.

A correct wording of your premise without the fallacy would be:
"If X exists, it can somehow be detected, right? Therefore, if X is absolutely undetectable, it cannot exist." Your conclusion:
does not follow without the fallacy of your assertion. Something can somehow still be detectable even if it is not detectable by us, so even if we don't know that it exists and can't detect it, it is still not absolutely undetectable and can still exist.

yguy

How is the possibility of any particular observer detecting it relevant? Seems to me that either way, non-observability by any sentient being is implied.

What is the substantive difference between the statement in bold and "X cannot be detected"?

But it would have to be detectable by some sentient being, wouldn't it? Otherwise, how can it be said to be detectable at all?

We're back to square one. Detectability is meaningless without an observer. And if detectability is necessary for existence, a thing cannot exist without some entity knowing it exists.