thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,530
Which is the case with theists.
Which is the case with theists.
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 13,590
Look, if you want to say that certain theists' claims are unfalsifiable, then I have no dispute.
But the claim that it is axiomatic that a negative cannot be proven is just nonsense. Somewhat pervasive nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. That's what I objected to.
I see where you are going but I think you need a better example to illustrate your point, an example where there's a difference in the "or"
Beady
Philosopher
He lives in a cave and therefore can't be seen from above. There are no caves on Olympus, you say? That's how well it's hidden.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Beady
Philosopher
Busy girl.
Oh crap!
Oh crap!
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
OK prove I do not have a green garage goblin.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Beady
Philosopher
In the spirit of destructive testing, I have revised my 1st paragraph:
1st. There is no way to provide verifiable evidence that a particular paranormal claim is false. However, verifiable evidence can be provided to show that either that claim shouldn't be true, or is at the very least unnecessary.
Oh crap!
1st. There is no way to provide verifiable evidence that a particular paranormal claim is false. However, verifiable evidence can be provided to show that either that claim shouldn't be true, or is at the very least unnecessary.
Oh crap!
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Let's revise it then. For a claim of the form "X exists" or "Y happened" (the two being really equivalent), the burden of proof is firmly on the one making that claim. Because:
A) It is disproportionately harder to disprove than to prove, especially in the absence of spatial and/or temporal constraints on the claim. (E.g., "a dragon exists" is nearly impossible to disprove -- he could be on the other side of the observable universe, or in a parallel reality, or completely outside our 3D universe, etc -- a lot more so than "There's a dragon in my attic.")
AND:
B) You don't have to disprove it in the first place, if no evidence is offered that needs X to exist or Y to have happened. Occam simply takes care of that.
E.g., there is no reason to spend any time or mental effort disproving the existence of the noble race of fridge elves in my fridge, defending humanity from the encrypted horror known as the fractal dragon, who travels between dimensions via fridges, if I didn't offer any evidence that requires those elves and that dragon in the first place. If those entities are not needed to explain -- also meaning PREDICT -- anything that can't be explained by simpler theories, there is no reason to do anything about that than shrug and point at Occam.
E.g., in history this takes the form of historical necessity. If we find graves, coins and/or an aqueduct leading to some place in the middle of nowhere, we kinda need some settlement there to explain it. If we have nothing that would need to be explained by a settlement there, well, then there's no reason to spend some time and effort disproving something that you had no reason to assume in the first place.
Beady
Philosopher
Very concise and succint.
Fellas, I appreciate the effort, really, but I have my doubts that this helps in rephrasing the OP.
Oh crap!
This is all wonderful, but pointless.
It's not a question of God or no God. It's a question of people who think knowledge is achieved via evidence, experimentation, and so forth and those that think knowledge is achieved via faith, belief or other variations on wishful thinking.
The OP presented a fine, logical, concise, fairly complete rebuttal to the giant magical sky wizard idea. The problem is equally fine, logical, concise, complete rebuttals have been presented for countless ages.
We're beyond Occam's Razor and into the realm of Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. "That which cannot be settled by experimentation is not worth debating."
You are dealing the the single most insidious form of Woo, belief. The ultimate, unstoppable Get Out of Logic Free card, and infinite nested special pleading, a logical blackhole from which reason cannot escape.
It's not a question of God or no God. It's a question of people who think knowledge is achieved via evidence, experimentation, and so forth and those that think knowledge is achieved via faith, belief or other variations on wishful thinking.
The OP presented a fine, logical, concise, fairly complete rebuttal to the giant magical sky wizard idea. The problem is equally fine, logical, concise, complete rebuttals have been presented for countless ages.
We're beyond Occam's Razor and into the realm of Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. "That which cannot be settled by experimentation is not worth debating."
You are dealing the the single most insidious form of Woo, belief. The ultimate, unstoppable Get Out of Logic Free card, and infinite nested special pleading, a logical blackhole from which reason cannot escape.
The challenge being knowing the difference - there's no shortage of self-certainty.
And those who think knowledge comes from glib, surface level clever thought terminating cliches.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
certain of that.HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Yet as I've pointed out before, the very same people would think I'm stupid, insane or both, if I applied that kind of epistemology to anything else BUT their pet superstition(s).
E.g., let's take the same example I used before: my old shoes are kinda worn out, I want to buy new ones. Well, what number should I wear? Simple problem, easy to understand.
Well, I could use several methods to get that knowledge. In no particular order, and not an exhaustive list, I could do one or more of:
- go to the shop and try them on
- measure my feet, order that number on Amazon
- look at what number my old shoes are. It's kinda worn out, but I think I can make it out.
- ask mom, she bought me shoes before
- postulate some axioms, work mentally from there. A.k.a., the Aristotelian system
- consume some *ahem* herbal shamanic medicine, light incense, get in a trance, ask the great spirits or gods. Who else would know better than a GOD?
- use a number from my last dream. I could swear some of them are prophetic.
- ask my favourite fortune teller. She can predict whether they'll fit or not. That's her job.
- roll my two lucky six-side dice, add the numbers, the 2-12 range should cover most human feet. What can I say? The universe owes me a win by now.
- use numerology
- try to divine the right number by reading between the lines of some religious text. E.g., clearly the number 40 is important to God, and clearly God cares deeply about me, and clearly wouldn't have made me with less than perfect feet. Now obviously this would be boat-sized in imperial, so it must be a metric shoe size. (Don't laugh, that exact same idiotic reasoning got us more than one Jesus-related date. SRSLY.)
- just use my lucky number and have faith. That number pops up everywhere I look, after all, so even by chance alone it might fit my feet too.
Etc.
Now even a person of sub-standard intelligence will recognize that some of those methods work better than others. Also will recognize the disconnect between faith/revelation/etc and knowledge.
They don't need to major in philosophy to recognize that.
In fact, as I was saying, most of them would think I'm anywhere between stupid and insane if I seriously lived those parts of my life by about half of those methods.
Now I could, of course, do the usual arguments like,
- you can't disprove that the 6 I rolled won't fit my feet when I order those shoes. (After all, I could get some mis-labeled ones, or a few other possibilities.)
- but science and measuring can be wrong! (Did I tell you about the time when grandma measured my feet wrong? Ouch.)
- but what is reality, after all? What if this is all a shared dream? What if it's all in my head or yours? Worse yet, what if we both are dreamed up by that guy over there?
Etc.
Do you think anyone would think it's anything else than idiotic if I did that?
So I'm going to put forward the idea that most people actually have an instinctive grasp of epistemology, because that's what it is, when cognitive dissonance doesn't get in the way. It may not be a formalized system, or even perfect, but most have a pretty good grasp that the best combination is to predict based on prior information, test, and adjust accordingly. E.g., for shoes, I should start from a number that worked before (rather than, say, go randomly until something fits), test at the shop, and adjust my number based on the testing results.
Arguably, it's even built in. Forming associations, and adjusting them based on further input, is how the brain works. That's how you learn to even walk.
It's only when one wants to believe some unfounded superstition that suddenly they distrust or even seem to forget the same method they apply all the time on every other domain.
Just to illustrate what others have said:
"It's an invisible Porsche" works equally both for positive and negative claims.
It takes the same type of exotic epistemology.
In my experience this idea comes mostly from Rusell's deliberately ridiculous thought experiment about the possibility that there's a china teapot orbiting around the sun, but it often gets oversimplified into the "you can't prove a negative" meme.
Anyway, I'm not sure, but I think "you can't prove a negative" is true for general ontological statements, such as X exists. If we circumscribe existence within a context, then it is possible, and it's easier to prove the more restrictive the context. Positive and negative are two sides of the same coin. What you're trying to prove (positively or negatively) is the same thing.
Last edited:
your shoe example is about methodology not epistemology, as in determining proper shoe size should we employ some measurement technique, a hunch, throw die, ask an Oracle etc. Now, in this thread I am reluctantly coming to the defense of religion only because no one else is willing, and when I use the term 'religion' I do not mean the bloated long-past their usefulness established religious bureaucracies, nor do I mean superstitions or relying on the testimony of others - what I mean is religion is to answer the inquiry 'what is real' or what is this 'substance' called reality . . . in this case religion sounds like science, except true religion also questions the foundational axioms of science.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
The cars are real, the cops are not your friend and you cannot fly.
Anyone familiar with Court trials KNOW it can be PROVEN conclusively that a defendant did NOT commit a crime by using the EVIDENCE presented.
Everyday, throughout the world people are PROVEN to be NOT GUILTY of crimes.
If it was impossible to prove a negative then once a person was charged with a crime then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to be found NOT Guilty.
Anyone who is familiar with evidence knows that it can be PROVEN conclusively that the Christian God found in their Canon does NOT exist.
The Christian Bible claims or implies God Created the sun, moon, animals, plants, and human beings no more than 10, 000 years.
It can be proven by Science that such claims are False.
The Christian God is a figure of fiction UNTIL Christians can produce historical evidence to support their God Creator.