• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of God

Mobyseven said:
I'll take it to the other thread, except for the point of empiricism: Empirical observation and experimentation can certainly prove a positive, as all that is required is one observation for a positive claim to be true (just as only one observation is required for a negative claim to be falsified).
Click to expand...
Well Ernst Mach, Albert Einstein and Stephen J Hawking for three would disagree with you that an observation establishes an existential positive. The whole philosophy of empiricism with respect to science has always gone the other way. An empirical observation is just that, an observation. The physical model is just that. A model.

But let's take two statements:

1. The earth we inhabit has at least one moon.
2. The earth we inhabit does not have more than one moon.

Let's say we define a moon as being a natural satellite of more than 1,000 km diameter.

So from a scientific point of view is statement 1 more reasonable than statement 2?
 
Hmmm...that's a good point. I suppose the point is that as our empirical observations of reality get more accurate, our physical model becomes a closer approximation of reality. Certainly, if we are to take things to the extreme nothing can ever be proved - but such a solipsist view of the universe is unable to provide us with any useful information. Using inductive reasoning and empirical observation we can formulate theories that have predictive power and real world applicability, even if we do have to constantly revise those theories.

The examples I have been using in this thread have all been very simple examples of course - in order to disprove the claim, "There are no cows," one simply needs to observe a single cow - for the purposes of illustration. These are basic principles of course; in science one would want to have independant verification of the cow in reproducable experiments, and accurate measurements should be taken so as to eliminate alternate hypotheses (such as a bunch of dogs tied together and painted black and white - Simpsons reference :p )

The two statements you gave:

1. The earth we inhabit has at least one moon.
2. The earth we inhabit does not have more than one moon.
Click to expand...

I would actually argue that with our current state of scientific knowledge, statement two is actually the more reasonable statement. The reason is that we currently have no reason to believe that there is more than one moon out there. There have been no observations of a second moon, and no unexplained phenomena could be explained by hypothesising the existence of a second moon. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to say, "The earth we inhabit does not have more than one moon."

The first statement, however, is not necessarily a reasonable statement to make. Certainly, it is logically correct, as we have already the established the existence of one moon. However, the statement violates the Gricean maxim of quantity - there is more information given in that statement than is necessary, as we know (to as reasonable a degree as anyone can 'know' anything in science) that there is one moon and one moon only. Giving more information than that can be misleading, and should therefore be avoided. The same problem applies to the second statement as well, but to a lesser extent, as it is positing only two possible scenarios - no moon or one moon - as opposed to the theoretically infinite number of scenarios posited by the first statement.

Of course, the best possible phrasing of such a statement would be, "The earth we inhabit has one moon."
 
To put the record straight:

Mobyseven said:
Which makes your argument the argument of the god of the gaps, and thus a fallacious argument - end of story.
Click to expand...


From wikipedia:

God of the Gaps (variation of Argument from Ignorance):

It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God. This variant of the Arument form Ignorance is known as the God-of-the-gaps argument.
Click to expand...


Please, please, quote me where I have said this.


Mobyseven said:
I cannot disprove 'x' but in the absence of any evidence I feel comfortable in saying that 'x' does not exist.
Click to expand...


So we differ:

I cannot disprove 'x' and, in the absence of any evidence for 'x', I feel justified in saying only that there is no evidence that 'x' exists.

And lets leave it at that.

Mobyseven said:
Regardless of what 'x' is, that statement works. To change the rules for one entity is...a case of special pleading.
Click to expand...


From wikipedia:

Special pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle without justifying the exemption.
Click to expand...


The justification:

The tooth faerie's posited role in replacing a tooth - in a glass of water on the bedside table of a sleeping child - with a coin has been shown to have a natural cause (parents).
The deistic god's posited role in creating the universe has not (yet) been shown to have a natural cause.

Mobyseven said:
I don't misconstrue your arguments, I understand them well. I would however suggest that you have not fully thought through the implications of your own arguments.
Click to expand...


See above.
 
Last edited:
Mobyseven said:
Of course, the best possible phrasing of such a statement would be, "The earth we inhabit has one moon."
Click to expand...
Or even "has exactly one moon". Which you can get from a conjunction of statements 1 and 2. In predicate logic (with E being backwards to how it should be)-

1. (Ex)Mx
2. (x)(y)[(Mx AND My) -> x = y]
3. (Ex)Mx AND (x)(y)[(Mx AND My) -> x = y]
 
Mangafranga said:
Or even "has exactly one moon". Which you can get from a conjunction of statements 1 and 2. In predicate logic (with E being backwards to how it should be)-

1. (Ex)Mx
2. (x)(y)[(Mx AND My) -> x = y]
3. (Ex)Mx AND (x)(y)[(Mx AND My) -> x = y]
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, if I were to refer to "earth's second moon, you know, not the one Neil Armstrong landed on" you could be certain beyond reasonable doubt that I am referring to something that does not exist.
 
Oh, and speaking of pedantically imprecise BillyJoe, do you still claim that "something from nothing or time without beginning" is a dichotomy?
 
Mobyseven said:
Of course, the best possible phrasing of such a statement would be, "The earth we inhabit has one moon."
Click to expand...
I disagree. Even the proposition "The earth has exactly one moon" involves two claims. Firstly the existence of one moon, and secondly the non-existence of of other moons.

So if you can demonstrate "The earth has exactly one moon" you can demonstrate an existential negative.
 
Mangafranga said:
Or even "has exactly one moon". Which you can get from a conjunction of statements 1 and 2. In predicate logic (with E being backwards to how it should be)-

1. (Ex)Mx
2. (x)(y)[(Mx AND My) -> x = y]
3. (Ex)Mx AND (x)(y)[(Mx AND My) -> x = y]
Click to expand...
I would point out also, that 1. says "The earth has at least one moon" and the rest says "The earth does not have more than one moon", which were my original two statements.

You need both these propositions to say the earth has exactly one moon.
 
Robin said:
Oh, and speaking of pedantically imprecise BillyJoe, do you still claim that "something from nothing or time without beginning" is a dichotomy?
Click to expand...


No, I've finished. :)

You show me. ;)



PS:

soilprofile22.jpg


No moon here. :D
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
I disagree. Even the proposition "The earth has exactly one moon" involves two claims. Firstly the existence of one moon, and secondly the non-existence of of other moons.

So if you can demonstrate "The earth has exactly one moon" you can demonstrate an existential negative.
Click to expand...

Except you can never actually prove the second claim: There is no way to prove that there isn't a second moon that disappears every time someone tries to observe it in any way. Certainly, we can say that it is highly, highly unlikely, but to prove that such a thing does not exist? We would have to observe it - and yet it has been defined as unobservable.

If that sounds silly, or supernatural, well - duh. That's the point. And certainly, it should sound silly to anyone used to science. But, unless one is omniscient, one is unable to prove the non-existence of anything. That's entirely why we test hypotheses through empirical experimentation and observation, and it is why we feel comfortable in saying that there isn't a second moon orbiting Earth. It has never been observed, and it has no explanatory power if we hypothesise its existence. We are perfectly justified in saying that it does not exist, even though we cannot prove it does not exist.

It's Invisible Pink Unicorn territory.
 
/me bangs head against wall.

BillyJoe, for the love of Ed, go away. You aren't doing yourself any favours by asking me to point out yet again what me and Volatile (and Belz... and...you get the picture) have already made abundantly clear a number of times.

I'm tired of running around in circles with you.
 
Mobyseven said:
BillyJoe, for the love of Ed, go away. You aren't doing yourself any favours by asking me to point out yet again what me and Volatile (and Belz... and...you get the picture) have already made abundantly clear a number of times.

I'm tired of running around in circles with you.
Click to expand...


You still can't read either.

I said I'm setting the record straight.
I haven't come to argue the point anymore because it is useless.

I haven't used the argument from ignorance.
I haven't used the god of the gaps fallacy.
I'm not guilty of special pleading.
People can see for themselves.

Bye now. :)
 
Robin said:
I would point out also, that 1. says "The earth has at least one moon" and the rest says "The earth does not have more than one moon", which were my original two statements.
Click to expand...
1 and 2 were translations of your original statements.
Robin said:
You need both these propositions to say the earth has exactly one moon.
Click to expand...
3 is the conjunction of 1 and 2, and does say that the earth has exactly one moon.
 
this thread seems like it's only being kept alive by posters who must. have. the. last. word :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom