I tried to explain why this was a fallacy, why these two conclusions are not on equal footing, and in the process I (ill-advisedly) put forward the idea that my "disbelief" was more firmly founded in logic and reason than their "belief".
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .
Also for context consider:
Do you place your disbelief on level II or on level III?
If on level II, then how is it better founded than a level II theistic belief?
If on level III, then what is your empirical objective evidence that justifies this conclusion?
I tried to explain why this was a fallacy, why these two conclusions are not on equal footing, and in the process I (ill-advisedly) put forward the idea that my "disbelief" was more firmly founded in logic and reason than their "belief".
Can you tell me which of these statements is more logical than the others:
(theist): there is no objective empirical evidence that shows god/s do not exist, therefore it is logical to believe in the existence of gods,
(atheist): there is no objective empirical evidence that shows god/s exist, therefore it is logical to disbelieve in the existence of god/s, or
(agnostic): there is no objective empirical evidence that shows god/s exist or that they do not exist, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
Enjoy.
ps - if I have not already done so, welcome to the fray, and ...
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):
... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
Can you tell me which of these statements is more logical than the others: (theist): there is no objective empirical evidence that shows god/s do not exist, therefore it is logical to believe in the existence of gods, (atheist): there is no objective empirical evidence that shows god/s exist, therefore it is logical to disbelieve in the existence of god/s, or (agnostic): there is no objective empirical evidence that shows god/s exist or that they do not exist, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
Obviously the atheistic and agnostic statements are more logical than the theistic statement. I listed both atheist and agnostic because you don't actually distinguish them with those statements; as written someone should logically agree with both at the same time. Without evidence to indicate that a god exists it is reasonable to disbelieve a claim of its existence, and lacking any evidence gods are impossible it is logical to say we don't know.
You continue to insist that not believing a god claim is true must require someone to prove that it is false, but that is simply not the case. Before hearing a claim of a god's existence one does not believe in its existence, and after hearing the claim without evidence to support it the logical conclusion is non-belief.
quote:If you allege that there are no fulfilled Biblical prophecies after all that I have cited relative to Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation, there's no use in trying to convince you otherwise. Obviously your mind is closed on that count.
If you have new evidence that shows, for example, that Daniel is actually prophecy and not history, then by all means bring it. You seem to misunderstand how investigation works: You go where the evidence tells you. Daniel is not prophecy, it is history, retelling events that happened in the past as it was written in the middle of the second-century BCE. We know this because it uses terms and phrases that did not exist until then.
And events that it does predict, it gets wrong. And let's not forget that Daniel expects the end of the world to happen right then and there. It was written during the Maccabean Revolt and this is how we know it had to have been written no earlier than 164 BCE: It refers to the events regarding the desecration of the Temple and its reconsecration.
And what few predictions are made all fail: The destruction of the "four kingdoms" doesn't happen. If we take the Christian (hah!) interpretation of Daniel correctly, the fourth kingdom is Rome and that was to be the last one before the second coming of Christ. But strange, Ottoman and Islamic empires took over after Rome.
There was no such person as "Darius the Mede." Oh, there was a Darius, but not the one mentioned in Daniel. The only people there at the time were Cyrus (emperor) and his son Cambyses (king). There is no "Darius" who is king at this time. Daniel is not referring to Darius the Great who lived in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE.
Antiochus was supposed to conquer Egypt, return to Palestine, and there die at the hands of god (well, Michael, really, but god sends the archangel to do his dirty work.) Except Antiochus never did conquer Egypt and he died of an illness in Persia.
And god doesn't take care of things, the Maccabeans do, driving out the Seleucids.
And that's just Daniel.
quote:Nothing in the Koran comes close to the extent of fulfilled Biblical prophecy.
Says you. They have the exact same claim in reverse: Nothing in the Bible comes close to the extent of fulfilled Koranic prophecy.
Why should we believe you over them? They have just as much information, just as strongly sourced, just as powerful as you.
quote:What archeology in the Iliad lends evidence to something supernatural such as the Exodus account
But the Exodus account isn't archaeologically justified. In fact, all the archaeology of the time indicates that the Exodus never happened. The geography described in Exodus is all wrong. And the sheer number of people described in Exodus is impossible given the population. Exodus describes more than a million people leaving Egypt but the entire population of all Egypt at the time was only about two million. And yet, there is absolutely no evidence that half the entire population of the area vanished. Not one shred of evidence that the surrounding kingdoms didn't see this as a glorious opportunity to conquer Egypt by invading now that they didn't have anybody to defend it.
quote:as per the discovery of corroborating sites and debris in the Gulf of Aqaba and the region on both sides of the gulf near Nuweiba Beach which match up so nicely with the Biblical record?
Except they don't. And the location of Troy, burned to the ground exactly as described in the Iliad is just as strong evidence.
So why do we accept one and not the other?
quote:None of the photographed evidence has been falsified
Exactly the opposite: None of the photographed evidence has been validated. Contrast this to the findings in Troy. Oh, Schliemann was a greedy man and a lot of his work is of questionable authenticity, but it isn't like he's the only one who worked on it.
And unlike the Exodus, we have extra-Iliad references to Troy.
quote:Citing such evidence does not prove God exists, but it raises the possibility well above the status of fantacy
Not at all. It simply shows that there were people who believed in god. Nobody disputes this. But lots of people believe in lots of gods, all of which are in the exact same evidentiary position as yours.
So how do we distinguish them? Everybody else can give just as much evidence of the same quality or even better than you, so why should we accept yours over theirs?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
Or are you letting your biased opinion determine what seems logical to you?
I listed both atheist and agnostic because you don't actually distinguish them with those statements; as written someone should logically agree with both at the same time.
You are saying that "there is not enough evidence to say that X is true, therefore it is logical to not believe that X is true" is the SAME as saying "that there is not enough evidence to say that X is true or false, therefore it is logical to say we don't know"?
Yet you say that "there is not enough evidence to say that X is true, therefore it is logical to not believe X is true" is DIFFERENT from saying that "there is not enough evidence to say that X is false, therefore it is logical to believe X is true"? Can you tell me which of these statements is more logical than the others:
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
By your argument B and C are logical, but A is not. Now let Y = notX
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true, or
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true or that Y is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
How say you now? By your previous argument B and C are logical and A is not.
Fascinatingly, retaining SOME EXTREMELY LIMITED agnosticism is not BEING agnostic,
Fascinatingly, a statement that begins with the words "I am agnostic" literally does describe the state of BEING agnostic.
Dawkins writes:
"I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
RAZD writes:
...hence the distinction in the Dawkins scale, and that is the crux of your equivocation: you do not use "6" as BEING agnostic, EXCEPT to avoid bearing the burden, but you USE "6" as being de facto atheist in all other discussions.
Please don't start imposing your view of language on Dawkins. He, like most people, knows what "I cannot know" means.
I've explained why my "burden" is easy to bear in previous posts, and when I ask you questions that would mean that you would have to refute my points or agree with them, you don't answer.
On the question of the meaning of "agnostic", it is a difficult word, and often causes confusion in discussions. But you can't expect people like Dawkins, Truzzi and myself to use your arbitrarily chosen preference. Truzzi would certainly not have described people taking the "6" position on the Dawkins scale on propositions as being pseudo-skeptics. He wasn't stupid. Indeed, for unsupported hypotheses like god hypotheses, he essentially recommends such a position.
Have you read and understood his little essay?
RAZD writes:
So, now that you have backed yourself into a corner, where is the evidence that shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist?
I thought you were asking people to defend a belief that gods are very unlikely? One can't have evidence that shows that fairies do not or cannot exist if they don't, can one?
The six position is easily defended in many ways. For example:
I cannot know the ultimate origins of the universe. Any proposition put forward as an explanation of the universe would require evidential support to make it anything more than very improbable. Gods are one of very many such propositions that could be made. There is no evidential support for gods. Therefore, gods are very improbable.
Anyone elevating any hypotheses above this position without the support of evidence would be a pseudo-skeptic by Truzzi's definition.
RAZD writes:
You realize, don't you, that when you flatten the scale to put everyone at the same level you make all of your other arguments about differences between categories absolutely pointless and void?
You don't make Charlie into Mary by describing them both with the adjective white. And Charlie gets better defined by describing him with two adjectives; white and tall.
Thus every time you argue about a difference between "6" and any other position you are de facto equivocating between the meaning of "6" as de facto atheist and "6" as an agnostic position.
The positions are well defined by the descriptions. The fact that 1,2 and 3 are all theistic doesn't make them equivalents.
RAZD writes:
Thus it is evident from your post/s that you do not consider "6" = "5" or "6" = "4" and your argument that "categories 2 to 6 are agnostic" is meaningless compared to your usage of these categories.
It's your mistake to think that two things being described by the same adjective makes them equivalents. How long are you going to take to understand this?
RAZD writes:
Thus you are guilty of equivocation between the full meaning of "6" and the full meaning of "4" - and that no matter how much you try to weasel on the meaning of "6" you are being a pseudoskeptic and avoiding the issue.
Stop making accusations based on your own lack of comprehension, and concentrate on trying to understand Truzzi and Dawkins.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
How do you know that Truzzi is not using the word "agnostic" in the same way as myself, ...
For the simple reason, that if he meant it the same way, his point about pseudoskeptics, being people with a negative hypothesis, is meaningless.
The two hypotheses he's describing are only negative in relation to one another. It's relative, and would have been clearer to you if he'd used the phrase "alternative hypotheses".
Let me explain something to you. If you had asked Truzzi what his position was on the proposition that he would be struck by lightning the following day, he'd have been very likely to answer along the lines of "I don't know, but I think it's very improbable". He would not regard such a "6" position as pseudoskeptic. If you'd asked him about omphalism, very likely the same.
Have you read and understood his essay? He is not calling people who don't believe in elves "pseudoskeptics". He is talking about hypothesising on observed phenomena. For example:
phenomenon: universe.
Explanatory hypothesis: god did it.
Requirement: support.
Now, on to the age of the earth not being less than 400,000 years. After giving omphalism about a 40/100 chance, RAZD is left with about 60/100 for the naturalistic view. However, Satan may have been interfering with the apparent evidence. If we give that a 40/100 chance on the basis that it cannot be disproved, the naturalistic explanation will have to move down in likelihood.
Next episode: The fairies manipulating atoms and other propositions, which should be enough to relegate the proposition that the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years old to the "6" position of "very unlikely" on the Dawkins scale, risking RAZD having to call himself a pseudoskeptic by his own definition (not Truzzi's).
RAZD, the likelihood of propositions for which there is zero supporting evidence does not start at 50/50, it starts near zero and works its way up if evidence supports those propositions. That's how we dismiss omphalism and suggestions like "the devil is manipulating our minds". We cannot know (because they cannot be falsified) but we think them very improbable (because there's no supporting evidence).
Or are you letting your biased opinion determine what seems logical to you?
Biased by logic I should hope. But were you actually defending the theistic option?
RAZD writes:
You are saying that "there is not enough evidence to say that X is true, therefore it is logical to not believe that X is true" is the SAME as saying "that there is not enough evidence to say that X is true or false, therefore it is logical to say we don't know"?
I am not saying it is the same, I am saying that the logical position encompasses both statements:
An agnostic position, per your statement, does not know if a god claim is true or not. An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves the statement because there is not enough evidence either way.
The atheist, per your statement, only knows that there is no evidence to indicate that the god claim is true and so does not believe it. You mention nothing about evidence that the claim is false in the atheistic statement and there is no claim that the god does not exist.
RAZD writes:
Can you tell me which of these statements is more logical than the others: person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true, person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
By your argument B and C are logical, but A is not. Now let Y = notX
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true, person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true, or person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true or that Y is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
How say you now? By your previous argument B and C are logical and A is not.
What the F--- are you going on about? You appear to be claiming that the atheistic position is to accept that Y is true because there is no evidence to the contrary but to disbelieve X because there is no evidence in support of it, and the reverse for theists.
However, you have not defined what the hell X and Y are supposed to stand for, so it looks like you just pulled some placeholders out of your ass and tried to blow them into smoke. I am sure your argument sounded much better in your head, but I am going to need more than this word salad to figure out what you are getting at. So, go back and try again to make your point.
Hi Buz, sorry to bug you but I just went through the last 4 pages or so of threads you have been in and I'm still not finding one that seems to be about this archaeology? And the wiki isn't telling me anything that seems to be real useful in this context either. I would use the site search engine but it isn't working for me right now.
So could you link me to something informative about this stuff? I'm interested because you seem to be saying that there's something about these sites that is consistent with miracles or supernatural intervention or something, not just people living there or "sojourning" there or whatever, drowning there, for example.
Hi Iblis. Hey, no problem. It's refreshing to see someone's interested enough to observe. Unfortunately the Exodus Video I thread, the the most important thread of mine ever got deleted. That's the thread where this was extensively debated. I and others, including Lycimacus (spelling?) as well as another person who knew the Wyatts debated in the thread with the skeptics. Regardless of baseless claims by the skeptics nobody was able to refute the arguments and the video evidence cited.
You can go here to view the Utube video. It's all informative but if you're in a hurry the coral encased wheels etc are toward the end of the video. There's a lot more relative to the split rock, the inscriptions and Mt Sinai, etc not on this but info available via search.
I hope that helps. Let me know if I can help you further. Perhaps it's time for another thread relative to some of these things when I can get things caught up enough to participate more.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Still dodging dodging dodging keep those concepts dodging
Hi bluegenes,
Please don't start imposing your view of language on Dawkins. He, like most people, knows what "I cannot know" means.
And he also states
quote:"I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
That is a very limited agnosticism, only applicable in one small case.
On the question of the meaning of "agnostic", it is a difficult word, and often causes confusion in discussions. But you can't expect people like Dawkins, Truzzi and myself to use your arbitrarily chosen preference. Truzzi would certainly not have described people taking the "6" position on the Dawkins scale on propositions as being pseudo-skeptics. He wasn't stupid. Indeed, for unsupported hypotheses like god hypotheses, he essentially recommends such a position.
Have you read and understood his little essay?
I have. I think you are projecting your interpretation onto his definition. ANY critic, ANY negative claim requires the burden, and your position "6" includes a very small amount of agnosticism and a very large claim that gods do not exist: the de facto and "highly unlikely" part.
I thought you were asking people to defend a belief that gods are very unlikely? One can't have evidence that shows that fairies do not or cannot exist if they don't, can one?
The six position is easily defended in many ways. For example:
I cannot know the ultimate origins of the universe. Any proposition put forward as an explanation of the universe would require evidential support to make it anything more than very improbable. Gods are one of very many such propositions that could be made. There is no evidential support for gods. Therefore, gods are very improbable.
Which unsurprisingly, does not demonstrate that god/s do not, or cannot, exist. It is your (pseudoskeptic) opinion of a faked up probability which is unfounded on any evidence of possibilities, and devoid of any substantiation. It's just an argument from incredulity and nothing more.
Can you show your calculation of "probability" and the empirical evidence it is based on?
Anyone elevating any hypotheses above this position without the support of evidence would be a pseudo-skeptic by Truzzi's definition.
Really? Curiously, I don't find any quote in his article remotely reflecting that assertion, rather I see the opposite: that someone making that hypothesis needs to support it with evidence:
quote:Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
That's you, to a T, argument from incredulity and pretend probabilities being proposed as a plausible argument.
quote:Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it. If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances. ... But in far too many instances, the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact closes the door on future research when proper science demands that his hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested. Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs producing post hoc counter-explanations. Whichever side ends up with the true story, science best progresses through laboratory investigations.
In other words, a proper final conclusion can only be based on empirical evidence, based on scientific testing, and not on personal opinion and pretend arguments of plausibility.
Gods are one of very many such propositions that could be made. There is no evidential support for gods. Therefore, gods are very improbable.
No empirical evidence, no scientifically tested hypothesis, an assertion of improbability that is unfounded on anything but your personal opinion: ergo a pseudoskeptic position by Truzzi's definition and usage.
And Charlie gets better defined by describing him with two adjectives; white and tall.
Being tall is a relative term, you are only tall in relation to others. Charlie may be taller than George, but he comes up short compared to Mike, Kate and Pat. When we compare the agnostic content of "6" to "5" "4" and "3" we see that "6" comes up short of being "technically agnostic" and that "Completely impartial agnostic" is the tallest agnostic.
Nor does being tall make him not-white, so it does not mean that he doesn't need to check the "caucasian" box on a survey of racial types.
This is your essential problem, failing to see the distinction necessarily made by Dawkins between "6" as "de facto atheist" and "5" as "Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism." - rather clear english, imho.
Being white means he bears the burden of checking the caucasian box, but being tall makes no difference to the boxes being checked.
Being (minutely) agnostic does not remove the burden of evidence for the (major) atheist portion of the position.
You do not describe yourself as a "5" therefore you see a difference between "5" and "6", a difference that depends entirely on your degree of certainty (highly unlikely) regarding the nonexistence of god/s, and not on the presence of some (small remaining) uncertainty.
There is no evidential support for gods. Therefore, gods are very improbable.
This is the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" logical fallacy, plus an unfounded assertion of improbability that does not follow from the premise, another logical failing.
This is a typical (pseudoskeptic) category "6" claim, and not a category "5" claim. It doesn't contain any empirical evidence, only opinion.
quote:... A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence. ...
Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it. ... the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact closes the door on future research when proper science demands that his hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested. Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs producing post hoc counter-explanations. Whichever side ends up with the true story, science best progresses through laboratory investigations.
... All of us must remember science can tell us what is empirically unlikely but not what is empirically impossible. Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom if ever absolutely conclusive. Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim. Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them.
In other words, a proper final conclusion pro or con can only be based on empirical evidence for or against the concept, and based on scientific testing, not on personal opinion and pretend arguments of plausibility.
Science cannot rule out possibility, it can only make conclusions based on available empricial objective evidence, and adjudication is based on empirical evidence, not on opinion/s.
Note that "empirically unlikely" is not "opinionated unlikely" but is actually founded on empirical evidence. In case you are not clear on the difference, I give you:
People that claim level III confidence, whether theistic or atheistic, without having the prerequisite empirical evidence directly supporting the claim are making the same logical error of thinking that their personal opinion is some measure of reality.
Because it is not possible for us to scour all domains - only the ones we can visit (even with probes) - it is not possible for us to eliminate all domains.
Right, but we are simply talking about domains within reality, to posit anything else would be purely imaginative.
Then there is the question of what lies outside the universe:
I was hoping this would come up again, as it did in the other thread.
Who says there is a question of what lies outside the universe?
Where is the evidence that there IS an outside the universe at all?
What evidence are you using to posit such a non-evidenced domain?
if god/s created the universe, then logically they must have started from outside and could likely remain there.
This is the work of imagination.
No such domain like "outside the universe" should even be entertained as existing, when the sole reason for proposing such a thing is blind speculation.
This tells us that there may be mountains, but that our attempts to map out where they are have failed.
How does it tell us that there might be? Every attempt has failed. What are we then using as evidence to continue the search?
Yes, it ties in to your "ambiguous force" concept.
Mine? No. This was your ambiguous force that I said represented the diest version of god, which I believe you agreed with (maybe?).
What the F--- are you going on about? You appear to be claiming that the atheistic position is to accept that Y is true because there is no evidence to the contrary but to disbelieve X because there is no evidence in support of it, and the reverse for theists.
These are logically the same statements:
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true,
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true,
If one is logical then the other is logical.
These are also logically the same statements:
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
If one is not logical then the other is not logical.
You claimed that the following:
(atheist): there is no objective empirical evidence that shows god/s exist, therefore it is logical to disbelieve in the existence of god/s,
was logical ...
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true,
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true,
are of the same form, if you disbelieve that X is true then you believe that X is not true.
but that
(theist): there is no objective empirical evidence that shows god/s do not exist, therefore it is logical to believe in the existence of gods,
was not logical ...
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
are of the same form.
Your problem is that Y is defined as notX thus leading to a contradiction in both cases. This shows that your assertion that one was logical and the other was not is falsified.
The atheist, per your statement, only knows that there is no evidence to indicate that the god claim is true and so does not believe it. You mention nothing about evidence that the claim is false in the atheistic statement and there is no claim that the god does not exist.
Disbelief that gods exist is not a claim that god/s do not exist?
Are we going to see equivocation on the definition of atheist == agnostic again?
quote:atheist (ā'thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
quote:Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]
atheism , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism , which holds that the existence cannot be proved.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press.
ie belief that god/s do not exist, denial of the existence of god/s.
However, you have not defined what the hell X and Y are supposed to stand for, ...
Curiously, the logic of a statement is not predicated on what the terms stand for, but on the construction of the premises and whether the conclusion follows from the premises. One of the ways to test logic is to replace terms with placeholders so that your biases about the terms are removed.
These are logically the same statements: person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true,
If one is logical then the other is logical.
These are also logically the same statements: person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true, person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
If one is not logical then the other is not logical.
Sure, but you claimed that: "person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true," is equivalent to "person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,"
It simply is not so.
RAZD writes:
Your problem is that Y is defined as notX thus leading to a contradiction in both cases. This shows that your assertion that one was logical and the other was not is falsified.
It isn't a contradiction! In either case! SHOW how they contradict if you think they do. Use words, not placeholders.
RAZD writes:
Disbelief that gods exist is not a claim that god/s do not exist?
NO, it is NOT!
Is it seriously this hard for you to understand that disbelief of a claim is not the same thing as saying you can prove it to be false?
Someone could claim that I will win the lottery in 5 years. They cannot prove it, and I cannot prove them wrong at the moment. Nobody can prove them wrong! This does NOT mean that I have to believe their claim!
RAZD writes:
atheist (ā'thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
RAZD writes:
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]
RAZD writes:
Curiously, the logic of a statement is not predicated on what the terms stand for, but on the construction of the premises and whether the conclusion follows from the premises. One of the ways to test logic is to replace terms with placeholders so that your biases about the terms are removed.
Right, and so reversing the premises and getting a contradictory result is rather expected isn't it? But that isn't what you did anyway; "notX" is not actually an opposite to X. It is simply a claim that is not the same as X. X could be the Christian god and "notX" could then be anything other than the Christian god.
Sure, but you claimed that: "person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true," is equivalent to "person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,"
It simply is not so.
That would be because what I said was that
"person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true,"
is equivalent to
"person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,"
where Y is defined as notX. Notice the difference?
"person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that notX is true,"
becomes
"person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true,"
It isn't a contradiction! In either case! SHOW how they contradict if you think they do. Use words, not placeholders.
X = gods do exist Y = gods do not exist
"person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows (gods do exist) is true, therefore it is logical to believe that (gods do exist) is not true,"
"person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows (gods do not exist) is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that (gods do not exist) is true,"
which becomes
"person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows gods do exist is true, therefore it is logical to believe that gods do exist is not true,"
thus this shows that A(Y) and B(X) are the same argument. We can come to the same conclusion by using
X = gods do not exist Y = gods do exist
Now we go back to the two different logical structure presentations:
Can you tell me which of these statements is more logical than the others:
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
By your argument B and C are logical, but A is not. Now let Y = notX
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true, or
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true or that Y is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
How say you now? By your previous argument B and C are logical and A is not.
These are functionally the same logical form. Thus your claim that the A premise is not logical but that the B premise is logical is shown to be false when you see that A(Y) = B(X) and A(X) = B(Y), and thus they either both are logical or both are not logical. Because one contradicts the other the logical conclusion is that both are logically invalid constructions.
That leaves
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know
and
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true or that Y is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
and when we substitute Y = notX this becomes
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is true or that notX is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
which becomes
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true or that X is true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
Thus we see that C(X) == C(Y) and this shows that this form is valid.
Is it seriously this hard for you to understand that disbelief of a claim is not the same thing as saying you can prove it to be false?
Again, that is not what I said. Disbelief that (god/s do exist) is true = belief that (god/s do exist) is not true.
Right, and so reversing the premises and getting a contradictory result is rather expected isn't it?
Only if the logical form is invalid. C(X) == C(Y), no contradiction there.
But that isn't what you did anyway; "notX" is not actually an opposite to X.
In logic not(X) is defined as mutually exclusive of (X).
These are functionally the same logical form. Thus your claim that the A premise is not logical but that the B premise is logical is shown to be false when you see that A(Y) = B(X) and A(X) = B(Y), and thus they either both are logical or both are not logical. Because one contradicts the other the logical conclusion is that both are logically invalid constructions.
No, they are not. The "Person A" statement is illogical, regardless of it coming to the same conclusion as a logical statement from "Person B". Just because it comes to the same conclusion does NOT make it logically equivalent.
The "B" statement states it is logical to disbelieve a proposal that lacks evidence to back it up. The "A" statement states that the lack of evidence disproving a proposal is sufficient reason to believe. These are fundamentally different concepts, with the "A" statement being illogical.
RAZD writes:
Again, that is not what I said. Disbelief that (god/s do exist) is true = belief that (god/s do exist) is not true.
NO. IT. DOES. NOT.
Just because I do not believe someone's claim that I will win the lottery does not mean that I believe I will not win the lottery. I cannot prove that I will not win the lottery, so taking such a position would be illogical. Instead, I simply believe that my winning the lottery is unlikely and that there is no reason to treat the claim as anything but a wild guess. My position on the outcome of the lottery is simply that I do not know the outcome at this time.
A similar position applies to disbelief in a god claim: lack of belief does not require or imply that the statement be considered false.
RAZD writes:
Only if the logical form is invalid. C(X) == C(Y), no contradiction there.
But it becomes invalid if you use completely different logical statements like you did above. How about C(X) compared to A(Y)? What sense does that make?
You should be comparing A(X) to A(Y), B(X) to B(Y), and C(X) to C(Y). Anything else is just nonsense.
Can you tell me which of these statements is more logical than the others:
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
By your argument B and C are logical, but A is not. Now let Y = notX
person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true, or
person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true or that Y is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
How say you now? By your previous argument B and C are logical and A is not.
These are functionally the same logical form. Thus your claim that the A premise is not logical but that the B premise is logical is shown to be false when you see that A(Y) = B(X) and A(X) = B(Y), and thus they either both are logical or both are not logical. Because one contradicts the other the logical conclusion is that both are logically invalid constructions.
These are fundamentally different concepts, with the "A" statement being illogical.
So you agree that A(Y) is illogical. This means that B(X) must also be illogical.
NO. IT. DOES. NOT.
Curiously asserting your opinion does not change the facts.
My position on the outcome of the lottery is simply that I do not know the outcome at this time.
Congratulations, you've chosen option C(X)=C(Y) agnostic because you can't prove that you will win, AND because you can't prove that you won't win.
Whether the odds are actually empirically figured out to be a million to one, you cannot eliminate the possibility that you will win, and thus the logical position is that you don't know.
But it becomes invalid if you use completely different logical statements like you did above. How about C(X) compared to A(Y)? What sense does that make?
None, seeing as they are not of the same form, one of them (C) valid and the other (A,B) invalid.
That is a very limited agnosticism, only applicable in one small case.
Isn't the proposition that the devil made you type that 50/50 because it cannot be disproved?
Isn't the proposition that the evil fairies made you type that 50/50 because it cannot be disproved?
Isn't it, therefore, ~100% sure that your mind is being controlled?
I now know that gods don't exist, because the elves just told me they had searched all the dimensions, and found none. So that settles the question.
RAZD writes:
ANY critic, ANY negative claim requires the burden,
How do you know? Shouldn't you be a pure agnostic on that point? Isn't your level of positiveness in relation to omphalism negative towards other possibilities?
Which unsurprisingly, does not demonstrate that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.
That wasn't what I was trying to demonstrate, was it? Is Satan messing with your English comprehension again?
Could you describe what Truzzi means by a negative claim? Why is the claim that an "artifact" is responsible for something negative?
You have an unsupported claim about the origin of the universe. I have no claim. I don't know how the universe came into being. I'm agnostic on that. I cannot know how the universe came into being.
What was your claim again? Was it that the universe was created by the farts of celestial cows, or was it that the elves fabricated it by accident, or was it witches? I forget which. I'm impressed by your ability to choose one evidenceless proposition from all the others. How did you do it?
At least now you know it's not gods, thanks to my information from the local elves.
™ Version 4.2
(1)