Atheist's flawed logic.

desertwolf9
Theist
desertwolf9's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheist's flawed logic.

Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God. There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real. I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
 Send it off to Trollville

 

Send it off to Trollville - another theist pretending to be agnostic.

 


desertwolf9
Theist
desertwolf9's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-11-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Send it

MattShizzle wrote:

 

Send it off to Trollville - another theist pretending to be agnostic.

 

 

Why should this be sent to trollville? I am indeed an agnostic theist, I would just love to see some atheists go ahead and try to respond to this.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 I had this hunch earlier,

 I had this hunch earlier, but figured I'd let him ride.  I think you're onto something.

 

ALSO.. take some new pictures of your cat, we could use an update.  Obama promised change!


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
He/She hasn't trolled out.

Photobucket He/She hasn't trolled out. But if I see that cat again...

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Luckily we

desertwolf9 wrote:
Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God. There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real. I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.


Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

There's no need to assume anything, there is actually a fair amount of evidence available that I'm a real human being.

Note this argument isn't about scientific proof, but about practical thinking.

The one bit of empirical evidence you have is my post here. This is sufficient to say there is a phenomenon calling itself "JillSwift" capable of complex communication. Thanks to Occam's Razor, you can deduce that I am in all likelihood "real".

Robot and AI: A very low probability given that no AIs have successfully passed even the Turing test yet. Not impossible, of course, but a very low probability.

Several people posting: Again, a very low probability because my posting style remains constant. Again, not impossible, but improbable.

Figment of imagination: Again, a very low probability as you display sufficient grasp of reality versus imagination in that you are able to use the forum.

So, Occam's Razor states "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily". Given that "JillSwift is a human posting to a web forum" is sufficient to explain the phenomenon and the explanation has a very high probability given the number of humans you can observe posting to web forums, then there isn't much point in adding entities - like assuming I'm a robot.

So, as an agnostic atheist, I take this same idea and apply it to the god hypotheses.

Although "god" fits well into an explanation of the universe we find ourselves in, it is not a necessary hypotheses. Nothing within the universe requires god to exist or function. Therefore, where I'm open to evidence for god and where there has been no evidence so far for god, I default to failing to believe in god.

That's the exact same logic I use when I fail to believe in leprechauns, Fae folk, unicorns, Santa Claus, and Russel's teapot.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Send it

MattShizzle wrote:
Send it off to Trollville - another theist pretending to be agnostic.
Matt, theists can be agnostics just like atheists can be agnostics. C'mon man, you know that.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Luckily we

desertwolf9 wrote:

Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God.

Given that. Aren't there people allowed NOT to choose 'god'? Interesting how that comes back to belief isn't it?

Since those who have 'chosen god' have decided to impose their beliefs upon society, I think we have a problem.

 

desertfox9 wrote:
There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real.

I don't have to assume that I am real. So who is "we"? Are you a BORG now?

 

desertfox9 wrote:
I've never met you,

it's quite possible that you could be a robot

That does not compute.

 

desertfox9 wrote:
or artificial intelligence

As opposed to genuine intelligence? What would YOU have to compare it to?

 

desertfox9 wrote:
or several persons posting under the same username.

You're the one saying "We" here.

 

desertfox9 wrote:
Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

Then I am impressed because only a truly gifted person could have envisioned me.



desertfox9 wrote:
Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

Yes. Why are you seeking fake old me instead of conversing with your 'real' imaginary friend?

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hey, Matt, is that a

Hey, Matt, is that a different cat? I liked the one with the piece of bread on its head.

desertwolf9 wrote:
Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God.

Some of us? Excuse me? I thought you considered yourself an agnostic and interpreted that term as "in between" theism and atheism.

Quote:
There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real.

Wow, please refer to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning

I don't assume I am real. I know I am real through deductive reasoning.

- I think.

- If I think, then I am.

- Therefore, I am. 

Now, if you want to argue that we can't be sure about anything, then you're just desperate. It doesn't take a philosopher or mathematician to figure out that the probability of me not existing is not the same as the chance of there being a Furger Argorock in your house. All the evidence points to the fact that I exist, and all the evidence points to the fact that God doesn't. Your argument is a decrepit crotch.

Quote:
I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.
 

Yes, and we could all be living inside the Matrix. 

Quote:
Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

I'm proving that I exist right now by posting this comment.

Hey, next time someone's about to punch you in the face, don't duck. After all, you don't know if they're actually about to punch you or not. Actually, you know what, don't do anything at all, because if you do, you're assuming you exist, and that's flawed logic.

If you're insecure about reality, you can hide under your bed and suck your thumb. Or, you can except things the way they are and enjoy life.   

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: He/She

darth_josh wrote:

Photobucket He/She hasn't trolled out. But if I see that cat again...

 

Brian (the OWNER of this site) personally told me he LOVES seeing me use the NTSA cat picture, so unless you want to lose status...

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Brian

MattShizzle wrote:
 

Brian (the OWNER of this site) personally told me he LOVES seeing me use the NTSA cat picture, so unless you want to lose status...

 

Once in a fucking while, but every damned time????

This time you used the pic and threw in the theist can't be agnostic shit. This person has '5' posts next to their name.

As far as status, I don't give a damn what my status is. If the mods wanted me gone this instant then so be it. If Brian, Rook, Kelly wanted me to stop posting to you about the ridiculous shit you sometimes come up with then I would.

And for the fucking record, I contributed to 1/6 of the server and I STILL WOULD WALK THE FUCK AWAY NICELY IF ASKED OR TOLD!

What about you?

You'd go somewhere else and bitch about how you were banned just like you did when you 'left' Secularity.

Now, if you'd like to continue this conversation in PM then cool, but if you want to hijack this thread or another and we'll just air all of our dirty laundry right here and now then I'm game too.

What's it going to be?

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Why should

desertwolf9 wrote:
Why should this be sent to trollville? I am indeed an agnostic theist, I would just love to see some atheists go ahead and try to respond to this.

Oh, I didn't see this post. Sorry.

Wait, if you're an agnostic theist, then why were you arguing something contradictory earlier?

Quote:
Why do many of you believe that being an atheist should be the default position rather than being an agnostic? Many of you may claim that because there's "no evidence" for the existence of god, that it automatically means that the default position should be that he doesn't exist. Well I can easily say to that that you can't disprove his existence either. So wouldn't the most rational position to take be that "we don't know whether or not he exists" and subscribe neither to theism nor atheism?

Did you conclude that you're an agnostic theist after we explained the terms in the other thread?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh is missing the

darth_josh is missing the point. Can he PROVE that someone told him to go away? And more importantly, what if God told him to go away?

heh heh heh Sticking out tongue

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:darth_josh

Desdenova wrote:

darth_josh is missing the point. Can he PROVE that someone told him to go away? And more importantly, what if God told him to go away?

heh heh heh Sticking out tongue

Just making a point, Desdenova.

 

Which god? lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Nothing artificial exists

Nothing artificial exists .... BUT if you can imagine it, it is real, as Errors do EXIST. 2 + 2 = 5 exists, but that existent error didn't get us to the moon. God(s) of theology also exist in existent error.

Hey, science is testing ideas that all things may exist in parallel dimensions...  

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bubble+universe&btnG=Search

 

   I like your, NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN" cat,  Matt.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Luckily we

desertwolf9 wrote:

Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion,

Most definitely. I choose Miller Lite and having sex with as many women as I can. I do not choose religion.

desertwolf9 wrote:

and some of us choose God.

Well there's no accounting for taste, just leaves more women for me to have unmarried sex with, thanks.

desertwolf9 wrote:

There is no evidence that God is real,

First thing you've said that makes any sense at all.

desertwolf9 wrote:

however we don't have evidence that you are real either,

I'm not sure I'm real either. But just who is "we"? Are you a co-joined twin?

desertwolf9 wrote:

we just have to assume that you are real.

You all don't have to assume anything at all.

desertwolf9 wrote:

I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot

I don't see any wires or flashing lights on my end. Wait let me cut open my arm to check. Nope. Hold it, need to wipe the blood off the screen so I can type the rest of this.

desertwolf9 wrote:

or artificial intelligence

How would we determine that. Oh no, I'm not cutting open my head to check.

desertwolf9 wrote:

or several persons posting under the same username.

You all are the one typing as a co-joined twin, not me.

desertwolf9 wrote:

Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

If the best your imagination can do is create pretend posters on an Internet site you need help. If you are going to go out to fantasy-land at least imagine something fun like being in the middle of an orgy.

desertwolf9 wrote:


Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

Yes and you are talking to yourself. Time for your meds.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There is no evidence

Quote:
There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real.

...What?

This is an absolutely terrible butchering of the facts & philosophy involved. You do have plenty of evidence I exist, both in the form of my physical presence and my material records. I think what you meant to say is that you can't be 100% sure of this evidence, and you're correct (in a wearily academic sense) - but assigning reasonable weight to the evidence suggesting that people are real isn't even close to comparable with taking that leap of faith required to believe in the existence of your deity.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, there's more problems

Yeah, there's more problems with that line of thought:

I'm not sure even the programming would allow more than 1 person to have an account with the same name - certainly it would be a violation of the rules and detected if so. Sure 2 people sharing an account is POSSIBLE, but since there's little reason for someone to do so it would be logical to assume very few, if any, accounts do this. As to the AI idea, no known AI program has been able to pass the Turing test yet, and if for some reason the Military/CIA/or some university like MIT came up with one they probably wouldn't come here to test it - more likely inside and if they wanted to see if they could fool the general public it would likely be on somewhere extremely popular such as MySpace or in a chatroom. Plus the people who have actual pictures of themselves is a problem for that - especially if they have ones wearing an RRS shirt.

If we happen to be figments of your imagination and you can't tell the difference you would be psychotic and incapable of telling reality from fantasy in any case.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Proper Gander
Proper Gander's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
I'm pretty sure that this

I'm pretty sure that this guy is suffering from multiple personality disorder. That would explain why he says "we" and that he believes in god here, while he said "I" and that he did not believe in god in the other thread.

Of course, I don't have any real evidence that this is true, so I'll just have to assume that it is. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that logic, is there, mr Wolf?

"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Since I

desertwolf9 wrote:

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

It most definitely would not be the logical position.

"Absence of proof" of anything has no LOGICAL implications at all.

You would need to provide a more plausible explanation for the replies you see which seem like they are coming from another person, before you can say that the more reasonable position is that I don't exist. IOW an explanation which made more sense than the simple assumption that there actually is a person writing these response to you.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:"Absence of proof"

 

Quote:
"Absence of proof" of anything has no LOGICAL implications at all.

Bob, I really wish more people understood this.  I've posted this illustration several times, but it's worth doing again:

P1: There is no evidence for a god.

C: Therefore: ?????

Anyone who understands basic logic understands that a single declaration of a negative carries no logical consequences.  The only statements that have epistemological significance are those that speak of what IS, not what is not.

I see no reason to address the OP.  The poster clearly hasn't even the most rudimentary logic skills, and I don't feel like starting from scratch.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Luckily we

desertwolf9 wrote:

Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God. There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real. I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

I. Inherently Ironic

By asking other people this question, you are implying that you're a schizo. If you can't be certain that anyone else exists, then who are you talking to? What happened to that healthy agnosticism?

II. How We Know Things

It is impossible to know anything for certain other than the fact that I exist. The way I go about learning other things about the world is through my senses. I test things around me using the sensory tools at my disposal. Sight. Hearing. Smell. Taste. Touch.

I then log this information away for future use. As I continue to exist, I draw upon this information again and again, teaming up bits of information, comparing them, contrasting them, revising them, adding to them, and so on. Eventually I have an entire mental database of information, and the conclusions I have reached based on my data, experience, and analysis, culminate into a window through which I perceive reality. The window is not perfect, but it is all I have. The only things I can say about reality are the things which come through this limited window.

This is how it works for everyone. Including you.

You and I both know that past experience has taught you that internet forums are built and populated by people, who sit at computers and type messages on them---just like you sat at a computer and typed the OP. Your denying that you possess that information is just a fun game. It's the old "explain it to me as though I were an alien and knew nothing about your earthling ways" type game. We could maybe play that game, but if we're being serious, it's not necessary.

The point is this: there is plenty of evidence which you've collected over time which allows you to say with a high degree of certainty that those things called "other people" do exist in reality. You also have plenty of evidence at your disposal that lets you say with a high degree of certainty that you are discussing ideas with real people on a real internet forum that is not a product of your imagination.

But the "god" concept, conversely, has no such evidence to speak of. If we could at least say that there was SOME evidence, but not enough to be highly confident, then we'd at least have something. But we have nothing. So all we can say is that there might be something god-like going on in the universe, but if there is, we know jack shit about it, and so it's pointless to even talk about it. We don't have evidence for polka-dotted penguins on planet Polxtox-9 either, and we could therefore assume that there very well could be such penguins. But it's probably better if we just don't say anything about it until we have good reason.

III. Appealing to the Self-Tricking Mind aka Appealing to The Matrix

At this point, people who usually make this argument resort to some form of the following defensive measure:

 

[defense]Places a pencil in a glass of water.  See? The pencil looks bent, and yet it is not bent. But if it looks bent, then how can I trust my senses? You say that everything we know about the world is only known by first being received through a limited window of sensory perception, but if my perception of this pencil can be so wrong, then how do I know that what I perceive to be reality isn't completely wrong? What if my senses are lying to me?[/defense]

This is the same thing, just with a visual aid. If this person's senses were really tricking them, then how do they know that the pencil isn't bent after all? They know that because science---a thing we do with our senses----has taught us and them that the illusion of a bent pencil is just a trick of light.

If someone were truly fooled by this, they wouldn't even be asking the question, because they would believe the pencil was bent, and so what's there to be curious about?

But suppose we WERE all living in some Matrix-like world where everything we think we know is a lie. Can anyone really say that they know this to be true? To make that suggestion would imply that they're aware of the Matrix, which goes against the very idea of the Matrix they've proposed. i.e. "I happen to be aware of a truth that nobody is aware of." or "I happen to know that my senses are tricking me, even though I have no way of knowing whether my senses are tricking me."

Hmmm.... something fishy about that line of thinking.

These thought experiments are fun games often given to Philosophy101 students to get them primed for the real deal. And they're easy and fun toys to play with, which is why they get passed around.

Not exactly novel questions, though.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
this thread should have its

this thread should have its title changed to "desertwolf9's flawed logic"


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
absence of evidence is always evidence of absence

Hambydammit wrote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
"Absence of proof" of anything has no LOGICAL implications at all.

Bob, I really wish more people understood this.  I've posted this illustration several times, but it's worth doing again:

P1: There is no evidence for a god.

C: Therefore: ?????

Anyone who understands basic logic understands that a single declaration of a negative carries no logical consequences.  The only statements that have epistemological significance are those that speak of what IS, not what is not.

I see no reason to address the OP.  The poster clearly hasn't even the most rudimentary logic skills, and I don't feel like starting from scratch.

 

No, it is a myth that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Quote:
by Eliezer Yudkowsky

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. In logic, A->B, "A implies B", is not equivalent to ~A->~B, "not-A implies not-B".

But in probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. If E is a binary event and P(H|E) > P(H), "seeing E increases the probability of H"; then P(H|~E) < P(H), "failure to observe E decreases the probability of H". P(H) is a weighted mix of P(H|E) and P(H|~E), and necessarily lies between the two. If any of this sounds at all confusing, see An Intuitive Explanation of Bayesian Reasoning.

Under the vast majority of real-life circumstances, a cause may not reliably produce signs of itself, but the absence of the cause is even less likely to produce the signs. The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation. The absence of an observation that is only weakly permitted (even if the alternative hypothesis does not allow it at all), is very weak evidence of absence (though it is evidence nonetheless).

 

absence of evidence is always evidence of absence

 

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

desertwolf9 wrote:
There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real. I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

I. Inherently Ironic

By asking other people this question, you are implying that you're a schizo. If you can't be certain that anyone else exists, then who are you talking to? What happened to that healthy agnosticism?

II. How We Know Things

It is impossible to know anything for certain other than the fact that I exist. The way I go about learning other things about the world is through my senses. I test things around me using the sensory tools at my disposal. Sight. Hearing. Smell. Taste. Touch.

I then log this information away for future use. As I continue to exist, I draw upon this information again and again, teaming up bits of information, comparing them, contrasting them, revising them, adding to them, and so on. Eventually I have an entire mental database of information, and the conclusions I have reached based on my data, experience, and analysis, culminate into a window through which I perceive reality. The window is not perfect, but it is all I have. The only things I can say about reality are the things which come through this limited window.

This is how it works for everyone. Including you.

You and I both know that past experience has taught you that Internet forums are built and populated by people, who sit at computers and type messages on them---just like you sat at a computer and typed the OP. Your denying that you possess that information is just a fun game. It's the old "explain it to me as though I were an alien and knew nothing about your earthling ways" type game. We could maybe play that game, but if we're being serious, it's not necessary.

The point is this: there is plenty of evidence which you've collected over time which allows you to say with a high degree of certainty that those things called "other people" do exist in reality. You also have plenty of evidence at your disposal that lets you say with a high degree of certainty that you are discussing ideas with real people on a real internet forum that is not a product of your imagination.

But the "god" concept, conversely, has no such evidence to speak of. If we could at least say that there was SOME evidence, but not enough to be highly confident, then we'd at least have something. But we have nothing. So all we can say is that there might be something god-like going on in the universe, but if there is, we know jack shit about it, and so it's pointless to even talk about it. We don't have evidence for polka-dotted penguins on planet Polxtox-9 either, and we could therefore assume that there very well could be such penguins. But it's probably better if we just don't say anything about it until we have good reason.

III. Appealing to the Self-Tricking Mind aka Appealing to The Matrix

At this point, people who usually make this argument resort to some form of the following defensive measure:

 

[defense]Places a pencil in a glass of water.  See? The pencil looks bent, and yet it is not bent. But if it looks bent, then how can I trust my senses? You say that everything we know about the world is only known by first being received through a limited window of sensory perception, but if my perception of this pencil can be so wrong, then how do I know that what I perceive to be reality isn't completely wrong? What if my senses are lying to me?[/defense]

This is the same thing, just with a visual aid. If this person's senses were really tricking them, then how do they know that the pencil isn't bent after all? They know that because science---a thing we do with our senses----has taught us and them that the illusion of a bent pencil is just a trick of light.

If someone were truly fooled by this, they wouldn't even be asking the question, because they would believe the pencil was bent, and so what's there to be curious about?

But suppose we WERE all living in some Matrix-like world where everything we think we know is a lie. Can anyone really say that they know this to be true? To make that suggestion would imply that they're aware of the Matrix, which goes against the very idea of the Matrix they've proposed. i.e. "I happen to be aware of a truth that nobody is aware of." or "I happen to know that my senses are tricking me, even though I have no way of knowing whether my senses are tricking me."

Hmmm.... something fishy about that line of thinking.

These thought experiments are fun games often given to Philosophy101 students to get them primed for the real deal. And they're easy and fun toys to play with, which is why they get passed around.

Not exactly novel questions, though.

thumbs up   thumbs up   thumbs up

EXCELLENT POST Archeopteryx

desertwolf9, you have no evidence at all that its possible that anyone here could be either a robot or an artificial intelligence. We have no artificial intelligence that passes the touring test. Even fundamentalist Christians do not pass the touring test. Also, this is redundant because a robot could not masquerade as a human participant unless he was artificially intelligent.

Both your experience and Occam's razor says that participants are unlikely to represent more than one person - and so what, why does it matter,  if some usernames are used by more than one person.

However, your right I am not really a person, I am God. You see life is a test to see if your rational enough for me to want you in heaven by not believing in me, and I stay hidden so the test will work. Now that you have discovered the great secret of the Universe - you are screwed. You have to quite believing in me, even after you have discovered proof that I am god, or I will have to burn you in hell alive forever for believing in me, because I really hate religious people.

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I would agree that "absence

I would agree that "absence of evidence is always evidence of absence".

But it is still also true that Absence of Proof is logically empty, certainly as a statement in isolation.

This is a version of the fallacy that propositions can only be assigned values of TRUE or FALSE. Which is only true in the context of binary logic, whereas understanding reality requires dealing with the whole spectrum of probability, likelihood, weight of evidence.

Logic can only disprove some proposition about reality, by revealing a contradiction. It cannot prove a proposition is true, it can only show that it is consistent with another set of propositions.

This is why logic alone is not going to lead you to knowledge of reality, for that you need tools for gathering and evaluating evidence. Logic is an essential tool in the evaluation, but not remotely sufficient - you need all the tools of science and mathematics.

So that reinforces the basic point, arguing about 'proof', if that means strict logical proof, is a waste of time.

It should be all about evidence.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:But it is still also

 

Quote:
But it is still also true that Absence of Proof is logically empty, certainly as a statement in isolation.

Right.  This is a matter of logic, not science.  That is, if I say, "I have no proof of X," then I have no logical basis for saying that X is either true or false, which is all logic is concerned with.  The statement, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not really a single statement.  It's an argument.

The gist of the argument is that there are things which we know to be true which, for a substantial period of time, were unsubstantiated by evidence.  This is true, of course.  The argument gets fouled up when theists forget that absence of evidence when it has been sought vigorously usually IS evidence of absence.

Suppose I have a closed cardboard box, and I say, "Tell me if there's a live cat in this box without opening the box or looking inside in any way."  You could test the box for any evidence of containing anything at all.  The heft of it compared to cardboard's weight would be a piece of evidence.  If you tilted it this way and that, and the center of gravity changed, that would be evidence of something in it.  You could shake the box vigorously to ensure that any cats, if alive, were awake.  You could bring in a loud dog to bark next to the box.  You could listen for meows.  If you wanted to get really scientific about it, you could bring in someone who was highly allergic to cat dander and have them hold the box for an hour or so.

If you conducted a thorough series of experiments, none of which pointed to a cat in the box, you could reasonably concern that the lack of evidence was evidence of lack.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


locusofdoubt (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Here's where your logic is

Here's where your logic is flawed:

We have every reason to believe people are real since we can sense and perceive them every day. Of course certainty in the human mind is impossible, but the important part to remember is PROBABILITY.

Based on our perceptions of reality, I can reasonably assume people exist because the probability of people existing is approximately 99.99999999999%

Likewise, I can reasonably assume God, as theists see him, does not exist because the probability of God existing is approximately 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Luckily we

desertwolf9 wrote:

Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God. There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real. I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

No. The 'logical' position would be to accept that you cannot draw a 100% confirmed and reliable inference one way or the other, and so must either a)refuse to draw any conclusions, or b)draw a conclusion based not on 'proof', but on evidence. Evidence != Proof. Proof directly and irrefutably demonstrates a thing. Evidence directly or indirectly suggests, implies, or demonstrates the likelihood of a thing. The evidence suggests the universe you observe exists. There is, however, no proof.

So: either refuse to believe in the existence of the universe you observe, or go with the evidence. Personally, I refuse to claim absolute knowledge, but operate in accordance with the evidence, as I have no other means by which to operate. This goes for the world around me, my desk, Teh Intarwebs, and everyone I encounter: for all these things, there is evidence.

I've yet to see evidence for the continuation of existence after biological death, or for the existence of the divine. Have you any?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Luckily we

desertwolf9 wrote:

Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God. There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real. I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

 

The author--as some of you are--is confusing evidence for something with certainty. Evidence for any x is merely something that has a positive probative value for that x. It need not make x more probable than not.  Consequently, merely stating that there is evidence for God's existence or for the external world is a weak claim.

 


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I would

BobSpence1 wrote:

I would agree that "absence of evidence is always evidence of absence".

 

Nonsense. It's only evidence of absence if we expect to see evidence of presence.

 

Quote:
Logic can only disprove some proposition about reality, by revealing a contradiction. It cannot prove a proposition is true, it can only show that it is consistent with another set of propositions.

 

This is more nonsense. Deductive logic can prove the truthfulness of some propositions insofar that it is a structurally valid argument with sound premises. For instance-

  1. if A, then B
  2. A
  3. Therefore B.

If you accept 1 and 2 as true, then 3 follows without question. Another example would be reductio arguments. Typical reductio arguments assume a premise that leads to a contradiction--an absurdity--hence we can affirm that (if the rest of the premises are true and the argument is valid) the the negation of that initial assumption as true.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Here's a little help for the

Here's a little help for the OP author and it works through the sticky milieu inductive logic

 

  1. All the conscious experiences that I've experienced are mine
  2. I've examined a large and varied group of conscious experience
  3. Probably all conscious experiences are mine

This is basically an argument that shows I'm the only conscious being. It's difficult to attack my second premise without begging the question.

 

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote:BobSpence1

Mykey wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 Logic can only disprove some proposition about reality, by revealing a contradiction. It cannot prove a proposition is true, it can only show that it is consistent with another set of propositions.

This is more nonsense. Deductive logic can prove the truthfulness of some propositions insofar that it is a structurally valid argument with sound premises.

I think you've misunderstood Bob's meaning, because you're saying the same thing he did. When you qualify "prove the truthfulness" with "insofar [as] it is a structurally valid argument  with sound premises," you mean that it's consistent with another set of propositions.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote:Here's a little

Mykey wrote:

Here's a little help for the OP author and it works through the sticky milieu inductive logic 

  1. All the conscious experiences that I've experienced are mine
  2. I've examined a large and varied group of conscious experience
  3. Probably all conscious experiences are mine

This is basically an argument that shows I'm the only conscious being. It's difficult to attack my second premise without begging the question.

Oooh, I like this one. At least you have an appreciation of the fun of logic. (It's often absent in theistic posters.)

The only difficulty I have with your conclusion is that you introduce a step. Within 3 is contained another logical assumption, that being "a large and varied group" is representative of "all". If you're making reference to statistical analysis, then I see what you mean, but you haven't said that, so there's a big jump in your logic that makes the argument invalid. Let's reframe it.

1. A large and varied group of conscious experiences are a good representation of all conscious experiences

2. I have had a large and varied group of conscious experiences

3. I have experienced a good representation of all conscious experiences

See, I'd agree to that, but that just says that human beings have a shared conscious experience, which isn't what you're saying (I don't think). Maybe you can reframe it so that the faulty step is missing.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote:Here's a little

Mykey wrote:

Here's a little help for the OP author and it works through the sticky milieu inductive logic

 

  1. All the conscious experiences that I've experienced are mine
  2. I've examined a large and varied group of conscious experience
  3. Probably all conscious experiences are mine

This is basically an argument that shows I'm the only conscious being. It's difficult to attack my second premise without begging the question.

I like this, too.  However, I don't agree with it.  Not only does step 3 include two ideas that should be individual steps (the leaps from the breadth of an individual's experiences to all possible experiences to solipsism), but it tacitly admits its own falsity. It assumes that one is a victim, of sorts, rather than an actor.  By choosing to act, by sharing this logical proof, you admit that you accept there are other consciousnesses capable of following the logic. You observe grammar and spelling, to make your points intelligible to other thinking beings capable of reading them. 

If all experiences are the products of your own consciousness, aren't you admitting, just by writing the argument down, that the conclusion is false? Or at least, that you must choose to act as if it is if you wish to act at all.

This is the root of the sticky problem of proof.  I cannot prove that everyone on this forum, indeed everyone I meet, isn't a hallucination, a cybernetic projection into some part of my brain, or the frenzied world-building of a Boltzmann brain in the instant of its existence. I have only my experience to guide me in my conclusion that I observe a reality with some degree of accuracy, and I am forced to behave accordingly. I am forced to balance my views and actions between degrees of certitude on the one hand and skepticism on the other, being careful not to slip into either the traps of absolute knowledge claims or unfettered skepticism of everything.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Mykey

HisWillness wrote:

Mykey wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 Logic can only disprove some proposition about reality, by revealing a contradiction. It cannot prove a proposition is true, it can only show that it is consistent with another set of propositions.

This is more nonsense. Deductive logic can prove the truthfulness of some propositions insofar that it is a structurally valid argument with sound premises.

I think you've misunderstood Bob's meaning, because you're saying the same thing he did. When you qualify "prove the truthfulness" with "insofar [as] it is a structurally valid argument  with sound premises," you mean that it's consistent with another set of propositions.

 

 

No, I am not confused. Consistency is just sharing the (or in some cases a) same truth value. for instance,

 

if A then B

if B then A

 

are consistent if A and B are true. yet, you cannot use one to deduce the other. 


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Mykey

HisWillness wrote:

Mykey wrote:

Here's a little help for the OP author and it works through the sticky milieu inductive logic 

  1. All the conscious experiences that I've experienced are mine
  2. I've examined a large and varied group of conscious experience
  3. Probably all conscious experiences are mine

This is basically an argument that shows I'm the only conscious being. It's difficult to attack my second premise without begging the question.

Oooh, I like this one. At least you have an appreciation of the fun of logic. (It's often absent in theistic posters.)

The only difficulty I have with your conclusion is that you introduce a step. Within 3 is contained another logical assumption, that being "a large and varied group" is representative of "all". If you're making reference to statistical analysis, then I see what you mean, but you haven't said that, so there's a big jump in your logic that makes the argument invalid. Let's reframe it.

1. A large and varied group of conscious experiences are a good representation of all conscious experiences

2. I have had a large and varied group of conscious experiences

3. I have experienced a good representation of all conscious experiences

See, I'd agree to that, but that just says that human beings have a shared conscious experience, which isn't what you're saying (I don't think). Maybe you can reframe it so that the faulty step is missing.

 

inductive arguments cannot be invalid.  validity is a term for deductive arguments.  I do not think that the second premise needs to state that it is a representative of all simply because of epistemological considerations. The idea is simply that every conscious experience i have ever had was my own and i have consciously experience many varied experiences. therefore, all conscious experiences are my own.  this is pretty standard inductive logic.  i should also state that the conclusion on your argument does not yield the desired result.  it merely states that you have experienced a good number of conscious experiences. yet, it does not state that all conscious experience is your own.


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:Mykey

Kavis wrote:

Mykey wrote:

Here's a little help for the OP author and it works through the sticky milieu inductive logic

 

  1. All the conscious experiences that I've experienced are mine
  2. I've examined a large and varied group of conscious experience
  3. Probably all conscious experiences are mine

This is basically an argument that shows I'm the only conscious being. It's difficult to attack my second premise without begging the question.

I like this, too.  However, I don't agree with it.  Not only does step 3 include two ideas that should be individual steps (the leaps from the breadth of an individual's experiences to all possible experiences to solipsism), but it tacitly admits its own falsity. It assumes that one is a victim, of sorts, rather than an actor.  By choosing to act, by sharing this logical proof, you admit that you accept there are other consciousnesses capable of following the logic. You observe grammar and spelling, to make your points intelligible to other thinking beings capable of reading them. 

If all experiences are the products of your own consciousness, aren't you admitting, just by writing the argument down, that the conclusion is false? Or at least, that you must choose to act as if it is if you wish to act at all.

This is the root of the sticky problem of proof.  I cannot prove that everyone on this forum, indeed everyone I meet, isn't a hallucination, a cybernetic projection into some part of my brain, or the frenzied world-building of a Boltzmann brain in the instant of its existence. I have only my experience to guide me in my conclusion that I observe a reality with some degree of accuracy, and I am forced to behave accordingly. I am forced to balance my views and actions between degrees of certitude on the one hand and skepticism on the other, being careful not to slip into either the traps of absolute knowledge claims or unfettered skepticism of everything.

 

Even if I grant this, it does not mean that the argument is false. rather, it is that i am being inconsistent, weird or the argument is false.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Luckily we

desertwolf9 wrote:

Luckily we have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and some of us choose God. There is no evidence that God is real, however we don't have evidence that you are real either, we just have to assume that you are real. I've never met you, it's quite possible that you could be a robot or artificial intelligence or several persons posting under the same username. Or you could be a figment of my imagination.

Since I don't have proof for your existence, would the "logical" position be that you do not exist?

I'd like scientists to find the exact gene that makes people delusional. But even I am not that delusional to think that will ever happen. This is what happens when a newbie  brings a intellectual knife to an intellectual gunfight.

"Prove that it doesn't exist"

Ok, prove that I do not have an invisible  purple snarfwidget under my bed that makes invisable kegs of beer for me on Sunday while I watch football.

Google "Bentrand Russell's "Teapot" argument to demonstrat the 101 fallacy of laymen like you.

I have more evidence that you exist, based on your absurd answer, than I do, if I claimed  that I could fart a lamborginni out of my ass.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote: Even if I

Mykey wrote:

 

Even if I grant this, it does not mean that the argument is false. rather, it is that i am being inconsistent, weird or the argument is false.

A logically inconsistent argument is irrational, and need not be considered as a logical argument at all.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:Mykey

Kavis wrote:

Mykey wrote:

 

Even if I grant this, it does not mean that the argument is false. rather, it is that i am being inconsistent, weird or the argument is false.

A logically inconsistent argument is irrational, and need not be considered as a logical argument at all.

 

*sigh* I would be inconsistent, not the argument.  In other words, my behavior would be inconsistent with my beliefs. (assuming that i'm not just weird or the argument is not false.)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote:BobSpence1

Mykey wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I would agree that "absence of evidence is always evidence of absence".

Nonsense. It's only evidence of absence if we expect to see evidence of presence.

This is arguable. Maybe the 'always' is too strong, but then so is your 'nonsense' retort.

'Absence of evidence' would assume that some minimal attempt has been made to seek evidence.

In the truly practical sense, if we find no evidence, in the broadest sense, for the existence of some entity or the truth of some positive assertion about reality, then it is rational to proceed as if those propositions were not true.

Quote:

Quote:
Logic can only disprove some proposition about reality, by revealing a contradiction. It cannot prove a proposition is true, it can only show that it is consistent with another set of propositions.

This is more nonsense. Deductive logic can prove the truthfulness of some propositions insofar that it is a structurally valid argument with sound premises. For instance-

  1. if A, then B
  2. A
  3. Therefore B.

If you accept 1 and 2 as true, then 3 follows without question. Another example would be reductio arguments. Typical reductio arguments assume a premise that leads to a contradiction--an absurdity--hence we can affirm that (if the rest of the premises are true and the argument is valid) the the negation of that initial assumption as true.

'3' is only true about reality if '1' and '2' are in fact true propositions about reality. And reductio arguments are exactly consistent with my initial point - a contradiction is clearly logically demonstrable. It is your need to include the conditional "if the rest of the premises are true" that is my point.

If we start with some assertions about reality, and the logic leads to a conclusion which can be shown to not correspond with reality, then we have prima facie shown that something is wrong with one or more of our input assertions. But if the conclusion seems OK, that does NOT prove that our starting premises are all ok. This is the essence of Popper's falsifiability requirement for scientific theories.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote: *sigh* I would

Mykey wrote:

 *sigh* I would be inconsistent, not the argument.  In other words, my behavior would be inconsistent with my beliefs. (assuming that i'm not just weird or the argument is not false.)

If your argument assumes the point you're trying to disprove, it can't very well be a logically consistent argument, can it? Your argument does assume that some form of consciousness outside your own will receive it and be able to understand it through the medium of language (a mutually-erected symbolic construct) and the process of rational thought. This is a completely separate issue from your own perversity in advancing an argument you seem not to believe.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:Mykey

Kavis wrote:

Mykey wrote:

 *sigh* I would be inconsistent, not the argument.  In other words, my behavior would be inconsistent with my beliefs. (assuming that i'm not just weird or the argument is not false.)

If your argument assumes the point you're trying to disprove, it can't very well be a logically consistent argument, can it? Your argument does assume that some form of consciousness outside your own will receive it and be able to understand it through the medium of language (a mutually-erected symbolic construct) and the process of rational thought. This is a completely separate issue from your own perversity in advancing an argument you seem not to believe.

 

assuming what you need to prove is not necessarily inconsistent.  it just begs the question.  Before you comment on logic, and i say this to all of you, are you even trained in it?


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Mykey

BobSpence1 wrote:

Mykey wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I would agree that "absence of evidence is always evidence of absence".

Nonsense. It's only evidence of absence if we expect to see evidence of presence.

This is arguable. Maybe the 'always' is too strong, but then so is your 'nonsense' retort.

'Absence of evidence' would assume that some minimal attempt has been made to seek evidence.

In the truly practical sense, if we find no evidence, in the broadest sense, for the existence of some entity or the truth of some positive assertion about reality, then it is rational to proceed as if those propositions were not true.

Quote:

Quote:
Logic can only disprove some proposition about reality, by revealing a contradiction. It cannot prove a proposition is true, it can only show that it is consistent with another set of propositions.

This is more nonsense. Deductive logic can prove the truthfulness of some propositions insofar that it is a structurally valid argument with sound premises. For instance-

  1. if A, then B
  2. A
  3. Therefore B.

If you accept 1 and 2 as true, then 3 follows without question. Another example would be reductio arguments. Typical reductio arguments assume a premise that leads to a contradiction--an absurdity--hence we can affirm that (if the rest of the premises are true and the argument is valid) the the negation of that initial assumption as true.

'3' is only true about reality if '1' and '2' are in fact true propositions about reality. And reductio arguments are exactly consistent with my initial point - a contradiction is clearly logically demonstrable. It is your need to include the conditional "if the rest of the premises are true" that is my point.

If we start with some assertions about reality, and the logic leads to a conclusion which can be shown to not correspond with reality, then we have prima facie shown that something is wrong with one or more of our input assertions. But if the conclusion seems OK, that does NOT prove that our starting premises are all ok. This is the essence of Popper's falsifiability requirement for scientific theories.

 

 

 


No, it is not arguable.

 

You said that what one can only do is prove that the proposition is consistent with the other premises. Do you know what logical consistency means?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Suppose I have a

Quote:
Suppose I have a closed cardboard box, and I say, "Tell me if there's a live cat in this box without opening the box or looking inside in any way."

*Reaches for his gun*

Eye-wink

 

Mykey: Do you actually have any compelling evidence for us to review with regards to your God? Or were you just here to beat-around semantics?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
I very carefully avoided

Mykey wrote:

 

assuming what you need to prove is not necessarily inconsistent.  it just begs the question.  Before you comment on logic, and i say this to all of you, are you even trained in it?

I very carefully avoided mentioning question begging. Your argument did the exact opposite of begging the question: it proved itself false in its efforts to establish a point.  This is inherently internally inconsistent.  If you can't tell the difference between begging the question (assuming the point you're trying to prove is true) and what you did (proving your argument fallacious with the assumptions you made), you shouldn't go around questioning whether people are actually familiar with logic.

If you have to assume that your argument is false in order to make the argument, you cannot claim any kind of consistency for the argument. It's the same failing from which one argument for universal skepticism suffers; my senses are fallible, I cannot know the world except through my senses, therefore I cannot know the world to any degree.  In making that argument, and yours, you admit there is a real world you can interact with in real ways, and that real consciousnesses really reside within that world.

Edited 'cause I hit reply instead of quote.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
MyKey wrote:You said that

MyKey wrote:

You said that what one can only do is prove that the proposition is consistent with the other premises. Do you know what logical consistency means?

A set of propositions is logically consistent if it does not contain any contradictions. IOW, it should not be possible to construct a valid proof based on some combination of those propositions which proves P, and find another valid proof based on that same or another combination of propositions in the set which proves NOT P.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote:inductive

Mykey wrote:
inductive arguments cannot be invalid.  validity is a term for deductive arguments.

Okay, but when you say "geez, guys, this is simple deductive reasoning, can't you even do that?" I'm primed to talk about deductive reasoning, and I figure that's where you're going. 

Mykey wrote:
The idea is simply that every conscious experience i have ever had was my own and i have consciously experience many varied experiences. therefore, all conscious experiences are my own.  this is pretty standard inductive logic.

No. The conclusion from your two statements introduces new information that comes from outside of the two statements. You have a stronger argument if you say that since you don't know if others have conscious experiences, then you must be the only one who does. Just because you've experienced many varied experiences doesn't mean they encompass all of consciousness (regardless of the type of logic you're using). Adding information about the kinds of experiences you've had doesn't actually change the quantity of your experiences to "all". I've seen many things. To assume that I've seen everything because I've seen many things wouldn't follow.

Mykey wrote:
i should also state that the conclusion on your argument does not yield the desired result.  it merely states that you have experienced a good number of conscious experiences. yet, it does not state that all conscious experience is your own.

Yeah, that's my point.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Suppose I have a closed cardboard box, and I say, "Tell me if there's a live cat in this box without opening the box or looking inside in any way."

*Reaches for his gun*

Eye-wink

 

Mykey: Do you actually have any compelling evidence for us to review with regards to your God? Or were you just here to beat-around semantics?

 

I had not realized that this thread was meant to offer evidence for God's existence.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote:Kevin R Brown

Mykey wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Suppose I have a closed cardboard box, and I say, "Tell me if there's a live cat in this box without opening the box or looking inside in any way."

*Reaches for his gun*

Eye-wink

 

Mykey: Do you actually have any compelling evidence for us to review with regards to your God? Or were you just here to beat-around semantics?

 

I had not realized that this thread was meant to offer evidence for God's existence.

The gun was for the cat in the box. Easy answer = cat is dead. Lighten up.

The logical position with regard to the box with the cat is indifference unless you are trying to use the proposition in an unethical manner to threaten me or someone else with punishment for indifference.

I don't care about your cat or why you keep it in a box (alive or dead). I don't even care if the box is empty.

Tell me what contingencies come with the belief in the state of your boxed cat?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.