Prev: Objectives tree (non mathematical)
Next: Struggling poet needs cash. Please help.
From: nemo_outis on 19 Apr 2010 02:30
huge <huge(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote in
news:heCdnWrEuZYyJlbWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:


....
> However, when you hear someone say "you can't prove
> a negative," it is often shorthand for "empirically, you can't
> prove that there are no x in existence."

Empirical matters are decided by the sufficiency and weight of empirical
evidence and the conclusion is always only probable and provisional. And,
of course, empirical supporting evidence, by its very nature, cannot be
absolute and is always partial and cumulative (indeed, is often at least
partially inconsistent or contradictory). But all this is merely to say
that the empirical is not the apodeictic.

But logic still applies. So, right after we define our terms, there's a
nice simple syllogism:

Empirically, does God exist? (where God is an entity with properties and
characteristics which would allow it to be recognized and distinguished
from other entities. Otherwise, empirically, we don't even have a valid
proposition that can be ascribed a true or false value, even a
probabalistic one.)

1. If God exists there must be empirical evidence of its existence.

2. The empirical evidence for the existence of God is limited, weak, and
contradictory, and insufficent to distinguish God from other alleged
entities with similar properties and characteristics, or from other likely
sources of the empirical evidence.

3. Conclusion: On the evidence, God does not exist.

Oddly enough, an almost identical argument regarding pink unicorns, with
the conclusion that, on the empirical evidence, they do not exist, causes
Theists no problems whatsoever.

In fact, although she still doesn't make the empirical cut for the
truthitude of her existence, the tooth fairy does much better in the
evidentiary balance than God. Widespread occurence of quarters under
pillows carries a lot of weight. :-)

....

Regards,


From: Greendistantstar on 19 Apr 2010 03:08
nemo_outis wrote:
> huge <huge(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote in
> news:heCdnWrEuZYyJlbWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:
>
>
> ...
>> However, when you hear someone say "you can't prove
>> a negative," it is often shorthand for "empirically, you can't
>> prove that there are no x in existence."
>
> Empirical matters are decided by the sufficiency and weight of empirical
> evidence and the conclusion is always only probable and provisional. And,
> of course, empirical supporting evidence, by its very nature, cannot be
> absolute and is always partial and cumulative (indeed, is often at least
> partially inconsistent or contradictory). But all this is merely to say
> that the empirical is not the apodeictic.
>
> But logic still applies. So, right after we define our terms, there's a
> nice simple syllogism:
>
> Empirically, does God exist? (where God is an entity with properties and
> characteristics which would allow it to be recognized and distinguished
> from other entities. Otherwise, empirically, we don't even have a valid
> proposition that can be ascribed a true or false value, even a
> probabalistic one.)
>
> 1. If God exists there must be empirical evidence of its existence.
>
> 2. The empirical evidence for the existence of God is limited, weak, and
> contradictory, and insufficent to distinguish God from other alleged
> entities with similar properties and characteristics, or from other likely
> sources of the empirical evidence.
>
> 3. Conclusion: On the evidence, God does not exist.
>
> Oddly enough, an almost identical argument regarding pink unicorns, with
> the conclusion that, on the empirical evidence, they do not exist, causes
> Theists no problems whatsoever.
>
> In fact, although she still doesn't make the empirical cut for the
> truthitude of her existence, the tooth fairy does much better in the
> evidentiary balance than God. Widespread occurence of quarters under
> pillows carries a lot of weight. :-)

Well, I don't disagree with much if any of that, but will play Devil's Advocate for a bit, so at
least to remove the nutter/ad hominem aspect that usually characterizes such debates.

A theist might retort that ontologically, the very fact of existence provides sufficient evidence of
God's existence. The argument from contingency is also not so easily shrugged off. Every object we
observe has a cause, or perhaps more accurately, is contingent upon another for its existence.
Extending the series should lead to something not contingent, and that we would call God.

It's a weak argument, I know, but it's about the best the theists have I'm afraid; I make a rotten
Devil's Advocate ;>)

The argument for the remedying of injustice has always been one I would *like* to believe.

That Hitler or Pol Pot should suffer the same ultimate fate as the rest of us ie oblivion, does seem
unfair. But life is unfair; good men suffer and bad men prosper, an annoying state of affairs, is it
not?

Cheers

GDS

"Let's roll!"

From: Christopher A. Lee on 19 Apr 2010 04:20
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:08:49 +0800, Greendistantstar
<Greendistantstar(a)iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>A theist might retort that ontologically, the very fact of
>existence provides sufficient evidence of God's existence.

Which is of course a non-sequitur.

>The argument from contingency is also not so easily shrugged
>off. Every object we observe has a cause, or perhaps more
>accurately, is contingent upon another for its existence.

Nope. Not according to Quantum Mechanics.

>Extending the series should lead to something not contingent,
>and that we would call God.

Nope. Even if it hadn't fallen at the first hurdle they go beyond
where there is any information at all, stop at an arbitrary point
where there is nothing to tell them to, and again without any reason
call it "God" for no other reason than they already believe in it.
Plucking its attributes out of thin air as well.

What exactly do they mean by "not contingent"? Where did they get this
from? Is it a presumption? Where did they justify this presumption?

>It's a weak argument, I know, but it's about the best the
>theists have I'm afraid; I make a rotten
>Devil's Advocate ;>)

It's worthless.

>The argument for the remedying of injustice has always been one I
>would *like* to believe.
>
>That Hitler or Pol Pot should suffer the same ultimate fate as
>the rest of us ie oblivion, does seem unfair. But life is unfair;
>good men suffer and bad men prosper, an annoying state of affairs,
>is it not?

Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

The problem is that all these arguments fail because they try to
generate information where there is none using fallacies. In the above
case they presume God and call it contingent, presupposing it not
concluding it.

>Cheers
>
>GDS
>
>"Let's roll!"
From: TehGhodTrole on 19 Apr 2010 04:34
nemo_outis wrote:

> huge <huge(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote in
> news:heCdnWrEuZYyJlbWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:
>
>
> ...
>> However, when you hear someone say "you can't prove a negative," it is
>> often shorthand for "empirically, you can't prove that there are no x
>> in existence."
>
> Empirical matters are decided by the sufficiency and weight of empirical
> evidence and the conclusion is always only probable and provisional.
> And, of course, empirical supporting evidence, by its very nature,
> cannot be absolute and is always partial and cumulative (indeed, is
> often at least partially inconsistent or contradictory). But all this is
> merely to say that the empirical is not the apodeictic.
>
> But logic still applies. So, right after we define our terms, there's a
> nice simple syllogism:
>
> Empirically, does God exist? (where God is an entity with properties and
> characteristics which would allow it to be recognized and distinguished
> from other entities. Otherwise, empirically, we don't even have a valid
> proposition that can be ascribed a true or false value, even a
> probabalistic one.)
>
> 1. If God exists there must be empirical evidence of its existence.
>
> 2. The empirical evidence for the existence of God is limited, weak,
> and contradictory, and insufficent to distinguish God from other alleged
> entities with similar properties and characteristics, or from other
> likely sources of the empirical evidence.
>
> 3. Conclusion: On the evidence, God does not exist.
>
> Oddly enough, an almost identical argument regarding pink unicorns, with
> the conclusion that, on the empirical evidence, they do not exist,
> causes Theists no problems whatsoever.
>
> In fact, although she still doesn't make the empirical cut for the
> truthitude of her existence, the tooth fairy does much better in the
> evidentiary balance than God. Widespread occurence of quarters under
> pillows carries a lot of weight. :-)

Empiricism wrt any Metaphysical X necessarily carries an inherent logical
fallacy of hypostatisation. Your logic above failed at step 1 for that
very reason, therefore your conclusion is illogical and faulty.

I'd be happy to discuss it if you wish.

--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
From: TehGhodTrole on 20 Apr 2010 03:19
nemo_outis <abc(a)xyz.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D5FA7EE52C52pqwertyu(a)69.16.185.247:

> "travisgod(a)aol.cominyrface" <travisgod(a)aol.com> wrote in
> news:420e5d83-6215-43c4-be66-b995a5c4423f(a)e21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> But for folks who are mathematically challenged, I'll give a simpler
>>> example: There is no integer smaller than 11 that is the sum of 2
>>> and 5. (Or, if you like, "There is no negative integer that is the
>>> sum of 4 and 2.")
>>
>> Uh...isn't 7 the sum of 2 and 5? That is smaller than 11 last I
>> checked.
>
> I'm delighted someone is reading

Congratulations on losing your usenet virginity.

--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Objectives tree (non mathematical)
Next: Struggling poet needs cash. Please help.