FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-28-2002, 10:35 AM   #21
Synaesthesia
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

WJ
Quote:
we can't help but assume something is true (exists) for us to engage in a method todiscover its truth to begin with.
If that were true, it would be totally impossible to prove the existence of anything in any meaningful way. For if we assume that something exists, any evidence found against it must be re-evaluated in light of the assumption that it DOES exist. If I assume that a visible pink elephant is sitting in my living room, the fact that no one can see it would force me to conclude that they all have abnormal vision, not that the elephant doesn't exist.

Your method is directly, absurdly contrary to the scientific method- incidentally the most powerful means of determining the existence of entities and processes.
 
Old 03-28-2002, 10:47 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Thumbs down

Not to mention the fact that stating somebody else also has a burden of proof does not alleviate your own burden of proof!

Cult members always think that all they have to do is say, "Well, you have to prove a god doesn't exist," as if that changes anything. It does not and serves only as a pathetic, childish (quite literally), evasion tactic.

If a cult member is to engage in a debate about the factual existence of their god, then the burden of proof is theres, regardless of whether or not anyone else states anything at all!

The burden of proof does not ever shift from off the shoulders of one who makes a positive claim, so to point out that others may (or may not) also have burdens of proof is to make a completely irrelevant statement for one purpose and one purpose only; evasion.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 11:02 AM   #23
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 283
Post

There's a simple solution to this whole burden of proof problem...
I was a lifetime atheist, but guess what?... I've become an agnostic! Isn't that amazing? It happened this morning while I was munching my Raisin Bran.
So, Ojuice5001, WJ etc. please help me out. Please provide me with some proof of your god's existence.
britinusa is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 11:12 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by britinusa:
<strong>There's a simple solution to this whole burden of proof problem...
I was a lifetime atheist, but guess what?... I've become an agnostic! Isn't that amazing? It happened this morning while I was munching my Raisin Bran.</strong>
Damned Raisin Bran!

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>
Jayhawker Soule is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 11:21 AM   #25
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 283
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
<strong>

Damned Raisin Bran!

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</strong>
Yeah, I know. I'm switching to Mini Wheats
britinusa is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 11:31 AM   #26
WJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 812
Post

Syn!

You said:

"If I assume that a visible pink elephant is sitting in my living room, the fact that no one can see it would force me to conclude that they all have abnormal vision, not that the elephant doesn't exist."

That would be correct! And so you haven't proved synthetic apriori's don't need to exist. Declaritive propositional statements about unknown's are logically necessary in order to effect a physical discovery. So, we agree that the 'elephant' may exist. The problem is that how does one apply this logical thought process to a Being that is thought to be metaphysical?

And if metaphysical statements are meaningless, then the atheist should not be concerned with any-thing but objects of existence. (Of course that would be a paradox for the atheist because sentience/consciousness/idealism is a metaphysical phenomenon.)

(?)

Walrus
WJ is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 12:36 PM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Angry

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Fictional creatures don't exist. If you are alleging that they do, then you must prove it.

There is no other claim being made in regard to deity, got it? Stating the obvious is not a positive claim requiring evidence!

Until it is proven that gods factually exist then no one on the entire planet is making a positive claim requiring evidence other than theists!

This is irrefutable and not open to debate. No semantics shuffles will be allowed. Let's make this perfectly clear so that even a braindead, mongoloid child can understand it:

EVEN IF I STATE "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" I AM IN NO WAY MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM THAT REQUIRES ME TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

God is a fictional creature from a book so until someone proves to the contrary, I can literally shout from Mt. Everest "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" and there would be absolutely no burden of proof on my shoulders because I would be doing the equivalent of shouting "FICTIONAL CREATURES DO NOT EXIST!"

IS THAT PAINFULLY F*ING CLEAR NOW?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 01:59 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A city in Florida that I love
Posts: 3,416
Post

Okay, britinusa, let's see. In terms of hard, factual evidence I have something. I don't think it would convince someone who finds theism implausible, but I, and most theists, find theism to be a plausible worldview. Here goes:

I just posted a thread in N/A arguing that some roads made by the Anasazi point to the existence of their gods. (I worship the Roman gods, but I also believe in the existence of the North American gods.) Fine-tuning. There's an argument I have found convincing for years. The main objection to it--the anthropic principle--misses the point in ignoring the fact that the FTA advocate demands an explanation for the constants of physics. For a period of a few weeks, my computer spontaneously displayed the phrase "Postverta's Page." Postverta, as very few people know, is the Roman goddess of the past and the most important deity in my life.

Most people on this site would think this evidence is unconvincing. The theism debate is too influenced by a priori factors for someone to expect otherwise. I just got the impression that britinusa was asking for specific facts that point to theism, so I gave three facts that are improbable if naturalism is true, but much less so if theism is true.
Ojuice5001 is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 02:07 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A city in Florida that I love
Posts: 3,416
Post

"Fellow xians"? I am not a Christian, I am a Religio Romana, Britinusa. (But I guess you could tell that from the kind of stuff I put into my last post.) Christianity was created for the purpose of leading Europe away from the true religion, the worship of Jupiter, so that a certain other god, named Jehovah, could take over. I am no more a Christian than I am a naturalistic atheist.
Ojuice5001 is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 08:24 PM   #30
Synaesthesia
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

WJ,

I simply can't discern what it is that you are talking about. Clearly you are in the grips of some unusual metaphysical theory, if only I could figure out what you mean by "metaphysical".

You said something to the effect of, "We must assume a preposition in order to test it"

I give a reductio ad absurdium of that assumption in the vein of W.V.Quine's saying,

"Anything can be held to be true, come what may, if sufficient changes are made elsewhere in the system." By that I mean to point out that your methodology is totally unusuable. And no, "metaphysical beings", whatever they are, cannot be meaningfully evaluated by your methdology either- The exact same problem of falsifiability is created.

Quote:
And if metaphysical statements are meaningless, then the atheist should not be concerned with any-thing but objects of existence. (Of course that would be a paradox for the atheist because sentience/consciousness/idealism is a metaphysical phenomenon.)
I don't even know what you mean by metaphysical (let alone the rest of what you are talking about), so I can't say whether consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon. Why should different standards of evidence apply?
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:45 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.