The problem of proving, that there is no proof

Open discussion for all registered members.

Re: The problem of proving, that there is no proof

Postby Lausten » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:21 pm

mm2k;
You might want to check out the threads on FreeThoughtBlogs. They usually open one up for each show. Also they post emails and other relevant information, debates, speeches and rants. The crew rarely checks in to this forum. It is sort of the backwater of ACA (Sorry Kazim).
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: The problem of proving, that there is no proof

Postby Lausten » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:33 pm

Okay, "mathematical" was the wrong word. You have been making logical arguments, and I've already discussed what are wrong with those.

Here's what's "frustrating" about discussions with you,
Grammar wrote:All his argument does is attempt to argue that if a god existed at all, it is impossible to figure out how to correctly worship it.
You say stuff like this, but that was not "All" his argument did. The "correctly worship" part was peripheral. You pick at other's mistakes and missteps, admit none of your own, and bypass the central issues.
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: The problem of proving, that there is no proof

Postby lucas11 » Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:27 pm

I would be category 6 on your list mm2k. I do not know in an absolute sense that no gods exist, but my opinion is strong enough on the matter that there is no real difference. Category 5 also implied that there might be some gods I'm not sure of.

The reasons for this include, but are not limited to:
- The supernatural does not exist, so neither do supernatural beings such as gods.
- Logical reasons supporting the existence of gods can be equally applied to e.g. a magic asteroid that fulfils the same function or an unknown natural process.
- Religions have had to correct themselves on many topics (e.g. cause of lightning) throughout history as science has found what really happens. This has never happened the other way.

I quite like a quote, which I only recently found "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". It is a succinct way of phrasing my own view that in order to start seriously considering an idea at all (e.g. a god exists) there needs to be some reason or evidence to support this idea in the first place.

To adopt an agnostic position on an issue (defined as we do not or can never have enough knowledge to show it true or false) you must first have enough evidence for the issue to be worth considering. That is why unicorns (of whatever colour) and many similar concepts can be dismissed out of hand.


In response to the discussion on default position:

Until reasons can be considered for or against a thing, judgment must be withheld


Shouldn't the default position be more neutral than that? Should the default stance assert neither existence nor non-existence?


I agree with the first statement, but would probably say no to the second.

The default position on whether information is true depends on our general experience.

If someone tells me they went bowling with a friend, my default position is to believe them because things like this commonly happen. If they say that they went bowling with a celebrity, my default position is disbelief as this doesn't normally happen, and I ask for more details i.e. evidence.

The neutrality of our position to new information also depends on the consequences of believing that information. If someone asks to borrow a lot of money, I require a lot more evidence that they will repay me than if they only borrow a little.

Please note that the default positions above are taken before any real evidence is considered and that the actual outcome could go either way in both cases.

Relating all this back to the question of whether gods exist or not, I think it is reasonable to start with a default position such as "scientific experiments haven't found any gods therefore they don't exist".

Once again, this default position is taken before any real evidence is considered and any revision of this opinion should be based on what evidence comes up to support either the positive or negative position.
lucas11
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:57 am

Re: The problem of proving, that there is no proof

Postby Lausten » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:54 am

Well said lucas11. Welcome to the forum. Don't mind the crickets.
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron