Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof for God's Non-existance?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 37 of 317 (420620)
09-08-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by kuresu
09-07-2007 7:15 PM


Ignorantium young skywalker
Until the theist can show concrete evidence for god (they haven't yet, especially if you listen to rob's claptrap), the logical position is that god doesn't exist.
Nope. It's not the logical position. It's your position.
Logic doesn't make any absolute statements. It is an apparatus for sound inference, and showing unsound inference.
Logic states that yours is an argument from ignorance.
You claim lack of evidence for God.
-- Who would qualify what evidences God? ( I am certain atheists and theists would have different qualifiers)
As crash says: abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence
That's the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium, and it swings both ways, for the positive and negative.
If there was some way to certainly pose what would evidence God, then Crash would be correct. But all we have is disagreement, and even if you go to the objective agnostics, they'll agree that there is no certain way to tell.
If you find no evidence that Jack was the ripper, that doesn't mean he wasn't. If there isn't any evidence he didn't do it, that doesn't mean he did.
HERE
(please read the short link)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by kuresu, posted 09-07-2007 7:15 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 6:47 PM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 57 of 317 (420733)
09-09-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Chiroptera
09-08-2007 6:47 PM


Re: Ignorantium young skywalker
Basically correct; to be more precise, an argument is a set of statements called premises and a statement called a conclusion; an argument is valid if the conclusion is true whenever all the premises are true; and the rules of logic gives a procedure to determine whether the argument is valid or not.
I assume you are teaching Kuresu this, as I was merely correcting him? Thanks for that more thorough explanation to him.
Your example is valid, I agree, but the implicative premise is not proven. One has to prove that if God exists, then certain evidence follows.
Properties a, b, and c give rise to phenomena x, y, and z.
If, and only if properties a, b and c give rise to phenomena x, y and z, THEN NOT x, y and z = NOT a, b and c.
While the construct is formally valid, I made the point that abscence of evidence CAN be evidence of abscence IF one expects certain evidence.
So I don't have any problem with the form of that syllogism, but humans can not say what would evidence God's/gods' existence with any certainty.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 6:47 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 11:39 AM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 60 of 317 (420761)
09-09-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chiroptera
09-09-2007 11:39 AM


Re: Ignorantium young skywalker
It is really just a way of preemptively starting with the ad hoc fallacy before the opponent has a chance to open her mouth.
I admitt that might be the case for some but basically I only say that people don't know what would evidence God because as far as I can see, it is genuine problem.
The fact is that God is too hard because by definition he is the creator who transcends the universe. So there's problem number one - we can never say that he created anything. So what can evidence him? Nothing created. This is why I am a proponent of epistemology and logic, rather than science, because truth-value itself is a neglected entity.
There is no fair criteria. Truth is essential to logic. Truth, validity, soundness.
In reality, humans have a torch in the dark called science. It brings light to truth - but some of us haven't forgotten about the places it couldn't reach.
We have many interpretations of scripture, as I am told of frequently. Many!
So as a logical construct, you're left with something tenuous such as;
" If said God exists, then if this particular theology is right, and if Sheila's interpretation is true, then X, which contradicts it's existence."
Well, humans can't say what would be evidence for anything's existence with any certainty
Through deductive reasoning, there is sufficiency in conditional implications, and as you know, heavy induction gives a good probability, without a paradigm shift. All you have to do is prove the consequent MUST follow from the antecedant. That happens a lot. It's simply harder to do when it comes to hypothetical supernatural entities. THAT is the only problem I have with it.
If you do think you have evidence against Jesus' existence - do you want me to just accept that?
In the case of "God", in all honesty, I do not know what would evidence him. Not only is he unfalsifiable, he can not be confirmed, as there are only impossible standards divulged, in order to rig the game. Or atleast, that is all I have witnessed thus far.
Such as, "if God comes down in all his might, takes part in all my experiments then leaves, then that would evidence him."
Many people argue like that, and expect that that is fair when infact that in itself isn't sound, because you make up anything you want, in order to make sure God doesn't exist.
Another example is evolution. Creationists come up with impossible examples, so that evolution can not be confirmed, OR, they seek to qualify a falsification. i.e. if we find a living fossil, then evolution didn't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 11:39 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 2:35 PM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 61 of 317 (420763)
09-09-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jon
09-08-2007 7:26 PM


Re: A - theos (negative God) = there is no God
You're welcome Jon.
As you can see, the link is very fair, as it attacks the Theist and Atheist use of this type of reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jon, posted 09-08-2007 7:26 PM Jon has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 65 of 317 (420801)
09-09-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Chiroptera
09-09-2007 2:35 PM


I am mike-oddity
the fact that so many people have so many different ideas about this god, and there is no way to reliably distinguish which ones are more accurate is itself evidence that God does not exist.
I don't think it follows Chirop'.
I don't see how that would rule out a true God, hiding in the fog of human-confusion. It's insufficient for me. I only have the motive of logic - no ulterior motive.
And this is exactly an example of an ad hoc explanation that I was talking about. It completely removes the question from further discussion. On what other subject would such a reply be considered satisfactory? Only when we are talking about peoples' preferred myths does this kind of dodge become a reasonable response
An ad hoc improvisation is to answer for a genuine problem. There is no genuine problem here - as it is all speculation. If we were talking about something concrete perhaps. I do concede that a specifically flawed version of what I am talking about could be ad hoc.
It's the same for the theist though - what about what I said about God being the creator - how on earth is it possible to confirm him without circular reasoning?
I mean, look at the OP of this thread. It is a demand that atheists present "proof" that there is no God. Why?
For what it's worth, in my opinion the burden of proof is not on atheists, to prove God doesn't exist.
I am only arguing against a strong dose of logical positivism.
I'm not a Christian-creationist either, so all the points you made are understandable to me. It will be true of many of them. But on a forum, what can I say if I agree other than; "I agree". This might perhaps give the illusion that I agree with Christians, always. But to me, the world isn't split, and it amuses me. For I know that we all agree and disagree about nearly everything, within and not within ideologies.
- I do not even claim Christianity as this stage, as I differ so greatly from those of my ilk that they constantly find it hard to believe I am a believer.
I don't know what it is like in the UK, but here in the US we have people who really do believe that they know God, and that they have indisputable evidence for God. Look at the Flood threads and the ID threads. These are the people who want to force women to have babies because God wants to punish sluts, and that we need to burn homosexuals at the stake otherwise God will fly more airplanes into tall buildings
As Sirius Black says; the world doesn't ony consist of good people and deatheaters.
Here's my scripture; we should all have a unique name, for not one of us is exactly the same in beliefs nor opinions.
- It enables me to look at people as people, some generally good - some generally bad, but not all good, and not all bad. Not atheists, theists, fundies, evolutionists, etc... just people in the same boat as me. And so I can embrace all. The creo is my friend - and the atheo-evo. I don't consider the unbelievers fried untill further notice, any more than the believer.
(Apologies for the long post, I don't expect a response to my rant).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 2:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 81 of 317 (420915)
09-10-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
09-09-2007 10:31 PM


Re: -proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
Crashfrog writes:
But that's exactly what it means. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. How else would we ever detect absence, if not by the absence of positive evidence?
This way;
Crashfrog writes:
But that's false. ~(~A) = A. Remember?
Where is the contradiction? You are conflating the term "not" with a contradiction in order to fudge over the issue.
Theargument from ignorance is NOT, "NOT". It is not a genuine contradiction being proved.
The abscence of X does not = NOT X.
Clever equivocation there Crash. I confess you had me in a daze for some time, and I only spotted it later rather than sooner.
I think the source is correct, Crash. An argument from ignorance isn't to show the contrary of the the predicate. You should go back and read the link from the skeptic's dictionary.
The example Jon gave is sound.
~ (~x) = x, is a sound argument, if the contradiction is proved. You have not proved the premisses, which is ~ (~x).
We only have arguments for or against God. Clever arguments, persuasive arguments, but essentially not solid, sound arguments. We simply can't determine God.
I also made a point earlier on which I hope you can apreciate. That we as Theist cannot confirm God because of his definition;
God is creator. Therefore anything created can NOT confirm God. Therefore nothing in the universe can confirm God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2007 10:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 11:19 AM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 82 of 317 (420916)
09-10-2007 8:57 AM


Fair is fair
In English;
Crash is basically saying, " hey, where's God - he's not here. "
He is saying that this means, NOT God under logical language. But "NOT", as in negative (~), doesn't mean
abscence.
Crash, the reason you can't win isn't because of anything your opponents argue - but is because of what logical laws disallow.
If it is any consolation, I think atheists are in a much stronger position that theists can ever be, because essentially, the burden of proof is on us.
But fair is fair. And science is only known to work based on the information it has - which is essentially logical. It is illogical to argue based on our ignorance.
Let's say for a moment that God does actually exist. That is a possibility. If it is claimed he certainly doesn't exist, then you are saying;
It is not possible that God exists.
As you can see, this REVEALS our genuine ignorance/arrogance. How on earth can we make such a statement, regardless of the truth of the matter.
For me - I can't take that road - because it is one of arrogance. And I don't like human arrogance.
So we've found out a few things using science - big deal, it doesn't mean WE are omniscient!

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 11:41 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 09-10-2007 2:34 PM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 87 of 317 (420947)
09-10-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 11:19 AM


Re: -proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
The contradiction is that Jon is saying that ~(~A) =/ A; but that's logically false. ~(~A) = A, it always does. It always has, and it always will.
I didn't disagree - I shown your quote.
But that's exactly what it means. A =/ ~A. Look, these are the most basic axioms of symbolic logic, Mike. If you're ignorant of them there's no point in trying to talk about logic.
You have only just mentioned those symbols to me, so how can you infer that I don't know what they mean when I have only just read them in this post? And even if I don't know the symbols, your statement is equal to saying; " If you do not know english then there's no point in trying to talk about language".
Compositional error Crash. Seems I can talk about logic, without know your preferred symbols.
You said;
Crash writes:
~(~A) = A
I thought this meant, NOT, "not God" = God.
I didn't actually refer to any other symbols.
It's not an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying we don't know about any evidence for God; I'm saying that, in many cases, we know that there's missing evidence. We know that evidence that should be present is not. Thus, we can conclude no God, tentatively. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
You're merely repeating what I said, like it refutes me or something. It's what I said!
I said;
mike writes:
If there was some way to certainly pose what would evidence God, then Crash would be correct. But all we have is disagreement

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 11:19 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:07 PM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 88 of 317 (420950)
09-10-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 11:41 AM


Re: Fair is fair
The breathtaking arrogance of the theist never fails to astound, Mike
I'm sure it astounds you.
But the idea that two entire universes (the physical and the spiritual) were created as your playground by an infinite being who doesn't have anything better to do than to concern himself with your behavior and your immortal soul, that's not arrogance?
Well, not strictly, because I don't actually argue that warped bizarro strawman.
Why don't you try embracing a little humility for a change - the humility of understanding that the universe is not here for your pleasure, and indeed, is entirely unconcerned with whether you live or die?
What astounds me is that you think it is relevant that the universe is unconcerned whether I live or die.
That is called a vacuously true statement. Search wiki for it.
What it means is that it is only true that the universe doesn't care, BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE IS UNABLE TO CARE.
It's like me saying;
If I were superman I would fly to the moon.
That is entirely true - but only because I will never be superman. Therefore it carries no weight.
I'm amazed that you would honestly believe that I would think that the universe should care for me.
I do not claim that the lion sees me as anything more than food - I merely believe the claims of the bible, which say that God cares for me because I am a living spirit. All of the evidence suggests I am not JUST an animal.
To me, it matters that heaven cares. But that is just a belief. It's not my own arrogance as I didn't make it up. I read it from others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 11:41 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:14 PM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 91 of 317 (420955)
09-10-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Jack
09-10-2007 12:10 PM


Re: Atheism as a Positive Belief
I enjoyed reading that, shaem it was so short. I can't see much wrong with the reasoning.
If it helps, I don't think you're fried untill further notice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Jack, posted 09-10-2007 12:10 PM Dr Jack has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 100 of 317 (420984)
09-10-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 3:07 PM


Re: -proof/yes-God doesn't equal +proof/noGod
Crash, please - what are you trying to prove here?
the Law of Non-contradiction (A =/ ~A) and the inference of double negation elimination (~(~A) = A).If you've never heard of either of these two things, then you've clearly no business trying to talk about what is logical or not.
I don't know what you're trying to prove here Crash. Mikey isn't on trial. All I have to do is make sound points.
Your argument is like saying that unless I am Einstein, I can't talk about E=MC2
You can talk about it, you just won't mean anything.
That's silly. My points are clear and I provide sources to show that I mean something.
It did refute you, which is why you're left with no recourse but to repeat yourself like I wasn't paying attention or something.
Your proposition is that there is some kind of evidence you would expect there to be if God existed.
That is only an your argument. Objectivites don't agree with you that there is some all-refuting evidence that would certainly be there.
Qualify what would evidence God, so that I can evidence him. You can't - you'll only come up with some impossible standard.
Hey Crash, I don't know what 2 + 2 = 4 means, does that mean I can't say that two add two equals four, as it won't mean anything?
Do you seriously think anyone will treat you with anything more than derision for asserting that?
~(~A) = A. In words: Not not A is equal to A.
IOW, mikey - you understood.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:42 PM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 104 of 317 (420998)
09-10-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 3:42 PM


ADDENDUM OF NOTORIOUS GARGANTUA
FINAL ADDENDUM OF IRREFUTABLE WEIGHT, enough to blow your socks off, oh yes!
You are being a tiny little bit defensive. I have made some comments in this thread which assert that I am not against atheists. I also don't think atheists are arrogant, just the conclusion that; "it is not possible God exists".
Yet you have audiatur et altera pars. For example, "the Theists". And, "mikey, kiss my dick you little sheep-shagger"...BZZZT, *bang* smoke.....wrong quote.
I am not out to hunt you down, shave you like a sheep and have sex with your intellect. So make like a lunatic and pop your stresspil, before you rrhain supreme, and bust a vain.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 8:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024