Are you an atheist? (2 Viewers)

[Frothingslosh]

I straight up said it was an empty bucket. If it were a false-bottomed bucket, I would have said so. If it had magical invisible baseballs in it, I would have said so. I said the bloody thing was empty. Period. Nothing in it (except, for the pendants among us, air). No baseballs. No tap-dancing elephants singing Kumbaya. No tricks, gimmicks, illusions, just a bucket that IS empty.

I mean, christ, if we were next to each other I'd hand you one for real. If I had your address, there'd be a bucket on a UPS truck bound for your house at this very moment. It is an empty bucket. Not may be, not might be, not probably is, but *IS*.

THE

BUCKET

IS

EMPTY

You know what, fuck it, you think I'm lying about the setup, fine. Whatever.

Let's try something else.

You are the one making the extraordinary assertion that it is categorically impossible to prove a negative under any circumstances whatsoever. That puts the burden of proof on you.

So.

Prove it.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Also, for further reading:

Thinking Tools: You CAN Prove a Negative
Negative Proof (it's the bottom-most section)
You Can Prove a Negative
<unnamed article> - includes the wonderful and easily proven "five does not equal four"
Iron Chariots article on the uses and misuses of the phrase

And that's just the first page of results from Googling 'proving a negative'

 

[Libre]

THE

BUCKET

IS

EMPTY

Ah ok. So that proves it. You say it's empty and that's the proof.

Your argument, in effect, is the following:

Premise: The bucket is empty.
Conclusion: Therefore the bucket is empty.

Certainly, in your made up universe, you can say that not only is this bucket empty, but all buckets are empty. You can say that giraffes are reptiles in your world, proving that giraffes are reptiles.

In the real world, you would have to prove such statements - it would be insufficient to just insist.

I clicked only on the first link and found bias and inaccuracy.
Example - they make the statement (paraphrasing):
"A proposition cannot simultaneously be both true and false".

Incorrect!
There are numerous paradoxes, easily demonstrated.

Example:
This statement is false.
(Bertrand Russell - same guy as the teapot guy).

If the statement is true then it's false and if it's false then it's true.

Okay, first article trashed.

I'll get around to the others someday when my boredom level increases - exponentially.

I can't prove my way of thinking to you any more than you can prove yours to me. We've reached a point where our actual meanings may have become irrelevant.

Nothing more to say on this topic.
Moving on...

 

[ColinEssex]

You know what, fuck it,. . . .

I really can't see the need for language like that. You do know it demonstrates a lack of ability to use the English language and limited intelligence. Still, you are American so we shouldn't expect too much.

Oh, could you answer my questions on the other thread please? I'm keen to learn your replies. Thanks.

Col

 

[Frothingslosh]

Shall I start pulling out the other 28 million scholarly articles conclusively proving you to be wrong, Libre?

Also, a paradox is not defined as 'simultaneously true and false'. A paradox is defined as a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

"This sentence is false" cannot be true, nor can it be false. It is simply nonsensical. It is as logical as 'the apples sound purple'.

I'm limited to thought experiments because we are a thousand miles apart. If I could meet you face to face, I would tell you that the bucket I am carrying contains no baseballs, then hand you that empty bucket.

At this point, you're grasping at straws, man. Not to mention the hubris in assuming that every logician, mathematician, and scientist out there is wrong on this topic....

 

[Libre]

Oh no - the hubris is in your thinking that you know the minds of every logician out there.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Oh, Hell, let's stir up the pot. TECHNICALLY the baseballs-in-the-bucket analogy has been misstated.

The correct statement of the problem, to be pedantically precise, is:

Mike claims that a baseball exists in the bucket.

Frothy disputes the claim. Since the bucket represents a limited domain for which a complete examination is possible, the negative of Mike's assertion can be proven by demonstration.

The analogous large-scale problem would be that Blade claims that a God exists in (and runs) the universe.

We who dispute the claim CANNOT demonstrate the negative of Blade's assertion because the domain is unsearchable due to its size.

We have to be careful about linguistic laziness. If there is a statement to be made AND DISPUTED, the assertion has to be of a positive nature in order for us to reach the state of being unable to prove the negative. It has to do with formal assertoric logic and the true negative of a "there exists" assertion. For instance, if the argument were "all X is Y" then it is enough to refute the negative by finding at least one X that is not Y.

It has been a long time but if I recall, the opposite of a "general assertion" is a "specific negation" - which is not an issue. But the opposite of a "specific assertion" is a "general negation" - and that is the one that can't be proved for the general case.

 

[Libre]

I can agree with most of your post Doc Man.
And I think that, when it comes to proofs, linguistic precision is absolutely necessary. Ambiguity in the phrasing of the proof invalidates it.
For one reason, ambiguity can later be used to claim something other than what was initially stated - to move the goalpost so to speak

I've already agreed that a negative can be proved by disproving or proving the positive if they are mutually exclusive. I suppose they are corollaries. So under these tightly controlled circumstances, I agree you can conjure up a situation where a negative can be proved/disproved.
Not that doing so is going to advance anyone's knowledge though.
If someone comes forward with a remarkable claim about something, I'd want exceedingly strong evidence before I would start to say it was proved and I'm sure we can all agree with that, although I can't prove it.

The problem with disproving the existence of God is not just the size of the domain but because the object of the study - namely God - may not be a physical entity but a spirit or a concept. It's like trying to prove the existence or nonexistence of love. It's open to interpretation. Someone who feels it can't convince those that can't. It can't be produced like balls in a bucket.

 

[Mike375]

This really simple.

1) Atheists state as a matter of fact that there is no God or gods or super naturals etc.

2) The theists state as a matter of fact that there is God. Variations are gods or super naturals.

3) Agnostics are in the "I don't know" but might lean one way or the other.

The first 2 have definite 100% positions but without proof. Thus they are both faith based.

In short an atheist is every bit as "religious" as a "born again"

 

[Galaxiom]

Atheists state as a matter of fact that there is no God or gods or super naturals etc.

Incorrect. Atheists state that in the absence of proof there is no reason to believe that any gods exist.

In short an atheist is every bit as "religious" as a "born again"

Not at all. The religious will not consider the possibility that there are no gods despite the absence of evidence for their existence while the atheist could accept that gods did exist if evidence were provided.

 

[Mike375]

Incorrect. Atheists state that in the absence of proof there is no reason to believe that any gods exist.

Then that makes an atheist an agnostic. The reason is that " absence of proof" can't be said to be a permanent situation. It might be in your mind but it can't be proven today.

Thus you don't know and thus you are agnostic.

 

[Rabbie]

An interesting point, Mike, but one you have made before.

My view is that I am not making a leap of faith in thinking that there are no unicorns walking on this planet. I can't prove that this is the case but there is no evidence that any exist. IMO exactly the same applies to the existence of gods or other supernatural beings. Now it may be that there are other planets that are home to creatures that are much more technically advanced than we are but that just makes them very clever but not supernatural. I think that however advanced they are they are still bound by the second law of thermodynamics and other physical laws. Until you can show me technology that does this I rest my case.

 

[Mike375]

Now it may be that there are other planets that are home to creatures that are much more technically advanced than we are but that just makes them very clever but not supernatural.

However, from our perspective they could be super natural. As I have poste before.....it's a nice hot sunny day and the little lizards and insects are out and about and their millions of years of instinct tells them this situation will last a few days. Then the home owner decides to mow the lawn and water the garden. For them that is super natural although it would fall into the deist area as it was simply a side effect of the home owners action.

I think that however advanced they are they are still bound by the second law of thermodynamics and other physical laws. Until you can show me technology that does this I rest my case.

Thus you don't know and hence you are agnostic.

 

[Rabbie]

However, from our perspective they could be super natural. As I have poste before.....it's a nice hot sunny day and the little lizards and insects are out and about and their millions of years of instinct tells them this situation will last a few days. Then the home owner decides to mow the lawn and water the garden. For them that is super natural although it would fall into the deist area as it was simply a side effect of the home owners action.





Thus you don't know and hence you are agnostic.

Mike, I also think that 2 + 2 = 4 but I don't regard myself as an agnostic on that point. It is rarely productive to base an argument on shades of meaning. I will often use the word "think" instead of "know" to avoid sounding too arrogant and also to cover myself if I am wrong.

Anyway I hope you had a good Christmas and I wish you all the best for 2016

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike, I return to my recent statement.

Atheists are the ultimate, hard-nosed skeptics. We MIGHT consider allowing you to get away with thinking we are agnostic if YOU will consider the possibility that our skepticism is not unwarranted.

1) Atheists state as a matter of fact that there is no God or gods or super naturals etc.

2) The theists state as a matter of fact that there is God. Variations are gods or super naturals.

3) Agnostics are in the "I don't know" but might lean one way or the other.

The first 2 have definite 100% positions but without proof. Thus they are both faith based.

In short an atheist is every bit as "religious" as a "born again"

This is a misstatement and until you understand the nuances of the misstatement, we will forever be butting heads like a couple of deranged mountain goats.

Your statement #1 can be modified very slightly to become correct. It might appear to be just a couple of words, but it makes all the difference in the world.

Atheists state as a matter of fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God or gods or super naturals - and therefore we dispute your statement #2. We also see no reason to act as though your #2 is correct. I have no quibble with your #3, which is fully condoned by dictionaries.

My modification of your #1 negates your subsequent statement: "The first 2 have definite 100% positions but without proof. Thus they are both faith based." In essence, if you can provide proof for your #2 assertion, you ALSO provide the proof that would resolve our "there is no evidence" comment. They are one and the same. For you to misstate the position has the effect of distorting the question and the REAL dispute.

The REAL question is "Is there any irrefutable and scientifically significant evidence for the existence of God (gods, supernaturals, etc.)?" Your #2 statement - belief through faith rather than hard evidence - is consistent with this question. My MODIFICATION of your #1 statement is also consistent with the same exact question. This is therefore not two questions but two sides of the same coin. (The #3 statement covers those folks who flip the coin and get it to land on its edge.)

When you look at your #2 and my modification of your #1, we can more clearly see that the difference is that the religious folks don't have any hard evidence and don't care at all that they don't. The atheists don't have any hard evidence but care strongly that they don't. Strongly enough to infer that continued lack of hard evidence over a long enough period represents a trend (leading to inferential rather than deductive beliefs in the absence of the supernatural.) If you try to push this question any other way, you are obfuscating it intentionally.

Before anyone accuses me of turning this to a "pure black-and-white" kind of question, remember that our agnostics supply the shades of grey and I acknowledge them. They don't have any hard evidence either (nobody does), and it bothers them that they don't.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Or in my case, would-be-atheist save that some scientifically unverifiable 'weird shit' (that's the technical term) happened that you've spent the last 25 years trying to figure out.

Also, it doesn't require faith to think that there are no tap-dancing singing hippos or my earlier-referenced glitter-farting beer-pissing pink unicorns running around; the complete and total lack of any evidence of their existence (not to mention biological implausibility) means that 'they don't exist on Earth' really is the logical deduction. Are they theoretically possible? Sure. Likely? Not very - it's on the order of a randomly generated list of several hundred thousand letters coming up as one of Shakespeare's plays.

 

[Mike375]

Mike, I also think that 2 + 2 = 4 but I don't regard myself as an agnostic on that point. It is rarely productive to base an argument on shades of meaning. I will often use the word "think" instead of "know" to avoid sounding too arrogant and also to cover myself if I am wrong.

Anyway I hope you had a good Christmas and I wish you all the best for 2016

I take your point Rabbie and you also have a good 2016. Might catch you on the other parts of the forum, you know, the ones about Access

 

[Mike375]

.

Before anyone accuses me of turning this to a "pure black-and-white" kind of question, remember that our agnostics supply the shades of grey and I acknowledge them. They don't have any hard evidence either (nobody does), and it bothers them that they don't.

The reality is that everyone is an agnostic. However, all of us have a degree of evidence or a degree of a lack of evidence. From that basis we as individuals then state our position.

For example I have sufficient evidence to believe that there is some sort of outside force. In fact just Monday morning past I received a phone call that solved a problem for me that had been consuming me over the weekend. However, I don't automatically say to myself God or gods were coming to the rescue. I tend to believe that some sort of mental telepathy exists. On the other hand you would write it off as some sort of coincidence or similar.

Basically we all have the same evidence and the same lack of evidence, however, our personalities will make us lean one way or the other. In case of the atheist he has sufficient lack of evidence to make a definite statement and of course the "God" person is the same except for him he has sufficient evidence to make a definite statement that God exists.

The reality though is both are agnostic as they don't know.

This same sort of thing also applies to other topics and we can act differently than we do with this topic. For example, my advice to someone is get a PC and MS Office. I have sufficient evidence that if someone wants a data base made and also have that data base interact with Excel and Word and Outlook then don't go down the Apple road. However, I am not 100% sure of this and thus I am agnostic but I take a definite position.

Anyway, have a good 2016 for yourself and I hope you achieve whatever goals you have.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The problem with disproving the existence of God is not just the size of the domain but because the object of the study - namely God - may not be a physical entity but a spirit or a concept. It's like trying to prove the existence or nonexistence of love. It's open to interpretation. Someone who feels it can't convince those that can't. It can't be produced like balls in a bucket.

Libre,

Comment 1 - all you did with that statement was increase the size of the domain to be searched, thus amplifying my position on the impossibility of proving a universal negative.

Comment 2: Does this statement mean that God is just a feeling or a concept or a non-physical spirit? Can non-physical spirits affect the physical world? (Psalms and Ecclesiastes both say "NO" on this question.) If so, then what parted the Red Sea; flooded the Earth; sent bears to tear apart children; toppled the walls of Jericho; caused the storm after Jesus died at Golgotha; or destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Are you saying that the Bible, which claims that these things happened, is not describing anything real? This is one of the stumbling blocks in any atheist-vs.-believer discussion of God. If the Bible is correct then God has to be more than just a feeling or a concept. If there is a real spirit floating around in some metaphysical dimension or alternate plane of existence, we need to know about it. But there is no evidence here on which to pin any theories, hypotheses, or even surmises.

This is always going to come back to the issue that, at least for all Abrahamic religions, first you need to show that the events in the Bible really happened, and second you need to show that these events were divinely implemented rather than naturally occurring. In the Catholic Church, sainthood requires two miracles that cannot be explained by other means than a miracle. They are notoriously stingy with application of the term "miracle."

For instance, some kids had polio myelitis back about 60 years ago (give or take a few), and "it was a miracle" that Dr. Salk came up with the vaccine. Before that, "it was a miracle" that Dr. Fleming discovered penicillin to treat infections. But those two discoveries were done via scientific research. The church would not consider the results of these endeavors as miracles.

The term "miracle" is too easily tossed around and therefore, when someone claims that one occurred, I have to cringe because I know I am in the company of someone who doesn't think clearly enough or know enough to recognize scientific cause-and-effect events. I try to not be an elitist on this subject, but it always comes down to this: I believe what I believe; I know what I know.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

For example I have sufficient evidence to believe that there is some sort of outside force.

Mike - For your statement, the difference between us is what you or I (or the religiously inclined people of the world) would call that outside force / influence / effect.