Prev: Objectives tree (non mathematical)
Next: Struggling poet needs cash. Please help.
From: Mark-T on 18 Apr 2010 17:51
On Apr 16, 8:28 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
> >You can also label the idea that "God sends natural
> >disasters as punishment" as being inconsistent with
> >the idea of an all-loving Metaphysical X. If 'sending
> >natural disasters' is inconsistent with the idea of an
> >all-loving Metaphysical X then that "God sends natural
> >disasters as punishment" is illogical and irrational.
>
> > In either case, you have your answer.
>
> Epicurus packed the whole argument into a tight
> (and airtight) trilemma:
>
> If God is not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent
> If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not good
> If God is willing and able to prevent evil, then how can
> it exist?
>
> PS  But believers never quite grasp logic :-)

Epicurus never met Kurt Godel.

Mark

From: Mark-T on 18 Apr 2010 18:00
On Apr 16, 5:57 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...(a)iinet.net.au>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>What about the sinners in Chile and Haiti?  For those
> >>>>>>>unbelievers, an earthquake was not exactly
> >>>>>>>strawberries and cream.....
> >>>>>> So, are you one of the knuckle-draggers who thinks God
> >>>>>> sends events such as these to punish sin?
>
> >>>>> Can you disprove it?
>
> >>>> How exactly would I do that? Be precise.
>
> >>> I don't know.  Your proof is your problem.
>
> >> Idiot. YOU are the one making the claim, the onus is on YOU.
>
> > um, I didn't make any claim.  You asked
> > how to prove something.  I don't know.
>
> You requested I disprove the assertion that God sends
> natural disasters as punishment. Now have a think about
> that request, ok? Go buy a book on logic, or Google
> 'logical fallacy'.
>
> >>Asking others to disprove such statements is ALWAYS
> >>the sign of a mind unacquainted with critical thinking.

yeah, I know that one: "You can't prove a negative."

You believe that's true, don't you?
Re-read it, Einstein: "You can NOT prove a negative."

The assertion is negative; it asserts that ITSELF
is not provable! Prove THAT, Mr. Aborigine Aristotle!


> >>> But travelers insurance states explicitly: void in
> >>> case of acts of God.  And they are professionals.
> >>> QED
> >> Yes, you *are* a knuckle-dragging fool whose grasp of
> >> logic 101 is non-existent.
>
> > You got a hangup about knuckle draggers?
> > Be careful, we can beat you up....
> >http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/76721/wandyvschuckweighin.jpg
>
> 'You' are not 'we'. *I* am 'we' and yes, we can beat you up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxRyRc3EOas



Mark
From: nemo_outis on 18 Apr 2010 21:20
Mark-T <marktanner50(a)gmail.com> wrote in
news:d0a9859e-0f2d-4bc0-a324-f0cf19beef7d(a)k41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

> yeah, I know that one: "You can't prove a negative."

Actually, while not every negative propoposition that is true can be proved
to be true, many (in fact, an infinite number) can!

(Nor can every true proposition be proved true - as Godel showed.
Actually, Tarski is the better place to start but I'll let that pass for
the moment.)

The classic "negative" that can be proved true is: There is no rational
number which is the square root of 2.

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.")

Obviously, I can state an infinite number of similar provably true negative
propositions.

However, as they say in the late night TV ads, "But wait - there's more!"

If by "negative" you mean there aren't valid negative existence proofs
(there is no x such that y is true) then the above examples dispose of your
error. If you instead mean that no proposition that is expressed in the
negative can be proved true then demolishing this error is simpler yet.

Every proposition can be trivially re-expressed as a negative proposition.
For example, the positive and provably true proposition "It is true that
one plus one add up to two" can be expressed as the negative proposition
"It is false that one plus one do not add up to two."

In short, if a positive proposition P can be proved to be true, then (with
trivial effort) so can the negative proposition !Q (where Q is !P)

So, yes, many "negatives" (whatever you twist that to mean) can indeed be
proved.

Regards,








From: huge on 18 Apr 2010 22:10
nemo_outis :

> Mark-T <marktanner50(a)gmail.com> wrote in
> news:d0a9859e-0f2d-4bc0-a324-f0cf19beef7d(a)k41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> yeah, I know that one: "You can't prove a negative."
>
> Actually, while not every negative propoposition that is true can be
> proved to be true, many (in fact, an infinite number) can!
>
> (Nor can every true proposition be proved true - as Godel showed.
> Actually, Tarski is the better place to start but I'll let that pass for
> the moment.)
>
> The classic "negative" that can be proved true is: There is no rational
> number which is the square root of 2.
>
> 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.")
>
> Obviously, I can state an infinite number of similar provably true
> negative propositions.
>
> However, as they say in the late night TV ads, "But wait - there's
> more!"
>
> If by "negative" you mean there aren't valid negative existence proofs
> (there is no x such that y is true) then the above examples dispose of
> your error. If you instead mean that no proposition that is expressed
> in the negative can be proved true then demolishing this error is
> simpler yet.
>
> Every proposition can be trivially re-expressed as a negative
> proposition. For example, the positive and provably true proposition "It
> is true that one plus one add up to two" can be expressed as the
> negative proposition "It is false that one plus one do not add up to
> two."
>
> In short, if a positive proposition P can be proved to be true, then
> (with trivial effort) so can the negative proposition !Q (where Q is !P)
>
> So, yes, many "negatives" (whatever you twist that to mean) can indeed
> be proved.
>
> Regards,

You are correct.
In both logic and math you can indeed prove a negative.
Even in simple sentential logic, here is a standard proof:

q v ~p
~q
______________
~p

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." Theists often rely
on this to (in their benighted opinions) support statements like
"you can't prove that there is no god," or "you can't prove that
there is no transcendent will of the spirit."

And, in fact, you cannot -- in anything like the sense of a logical
or mathematical proof. However, in the complete absence of
verifying observation, such statements are no more confirmed than
the leprechauns living inside the propane tanks behind these fundie's
double-wide mobile homes.

This is why we often say that exceptional claims require exceptional
proof to believe. You don't need to prove, in the logical or mathematical
sense, that such claims are bullcrap. All you have to do is show that
they are completely unsupported.

--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: Mark-T on 20 Apr 2010 14:20
On Apr 19, 6:03 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...(a)iinet.net.au>
wrote:
> >>> yeah, I know that one:  "You can't prove a negative."
>
> >> So, yes, many "negatives" (whatever you twist
> >> that to mean) can indeed be proved.
>
> > Cool.  Hence, "you can't prove a negative" is false.
>
> You didn't understand Nemo's reply, did you?
>
> > So if I claim Jehovah sends disasters to punish
> > the sinners, and someone denies it (because Jehovah
> > is imaginary), and I challenge him to prove it, he
> > should be able.
>
> You simply do not understand what constitutes
> proof. If you say God creates disasters and I
> say that is nonsense, the burden of proof is with
> YOU who made the assertion, not me.
> One can prove that earthquakes are caused by
> plate tectonics etc but this does not prove that God
> didn't initiate that.
>
> Let's say I accuse you of being a murderer. You deny that, and I say, "Prove you are not a murderer!"
>
> How will you do that? Logically, we would
> have to investigate every death anywhere at any
> time to see if you're the culprit.
> The correct response would be for you to say
> "Well, you provide a specific instance of a murder
> of which you believe I am guilty." which correctly
> places the burden of proof on me (the claimant) not you.

Legally, that's true. But t still doesn't prove my innocence.


> This is Logic 101, taught in many high schools
> and very many undergrad degrees.

You confuse schooling with understanding.

Mark


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Objectives tree (non mathematical)
Next: Struggling poet needs cash. Please help.