ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th January 2013, 10:10 AM   #81
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,718
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Quote:
... then-premier Nikita Khrushchev cornered Gagarin "So tell me, Yuri," he asked, "did you see God up there?" After a moment's pause. Gagarin answered, "Yes sir, I did." Khrushchev frowned. "Don't tell any one," he said. A few minutes later the head of the Russian Orthodox Church took Gagarin aside. "So tell me, my child," he asked Gagarin, "did you see God up there?'" Gagarin hesitated and replied "No sir, I did not." "Don't tell anyone."
But there's no way of knowing if this is true, or just an oft-repeated urban legend.
It's just a joke. That looks to me like a pretty typical sample of the Russian sense of humour.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 10:13 AM   #82
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,718
Originally Posted by epix View Post
... the Smolensk incident ...

<completely made-up balderdash snipped for brevity>

The colonel fainted.
What was his name?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 10:24 AM   #83
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,200
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
What was his name?
Colonel Bezbozhnikov probably. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_...itant_Atheists.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 01:47 PM   #84
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by TimCallahan
Of course, you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making a positive assertion. For example, if the state charges you with a crime, the burden of proof is on them to prove you committed the crime. The only way you could prove you didn't commit a crime is to have an alibi, i.e. to prove a positive that makes it physically impossible for you to have committed said crime.

So, epix, I propose that you come up with a pass / fail test for the existence of God. Is there anything that you can think of that should be true if there is a God that wouldn't be true otherwise? If we could agree on such a test, we could prove things one way or another.

Originally Posted by epix View Post
You just decided to steer away from the topic of the thread. The title does refer in a broad sense to the issue of existence or non-existence of God, but the following text sends the topic in a specific direction. You are forcing your agenda on the flow the same way Soviet scientific atheism "competed" with Christianity. You assume this approach to a debate very often, probably whipped by your desire to troll your way into the Hall of Righteous Conclusion.
Absolute rubbish. The title of this thread, which, I assume, you chose by conscious intention, is "The Empirical Evidence of a Non-Existing God." So, you are, in essence, demanding that atheist prove the non-existence of God. I pointed out that you cannot prove a negative. It appears to me that you are the one with the agenda here.

Originally Posted by epix View Post
You started with misapplying the conlusion "you can't prove negative," and that affected the rest of your view. There have been two approaches assumed by judicial systems: 1) guilty until proven innocent, 2) innocent until proven guilty. You are using the first option as a launchpad for the following proceedings, but I don't. This incompatibility gives me the right to decline your challenging proposition. I already explained my position in another thread - in a part wherein you hijacked the topic.
More rubbish. My approach is innocent until proven guilty. The dictum that you can't prove a negative mandates that, since one cannot prove he or she did not commit a crime, the burden of proof is on the state to prove the accused did commit it. In civil cases this translated to the burden of proof being on the plaintiff. However, I'm not surprised you dodged any pass / fail test for proving or disproving the existence of God.

Originally Posted by epix View Post
Go and read it.
Go and read it where?

Now, as to you quotes of what Gagarin did or didn't say, the reason I ask for a link or source is that whatever Gagarin is quoted to have said, may well have been story-telling. For an example of what I'm talking about, consider the famous last words often attributed to famous people. Go here and scroll down for a discussion of Voltaire's death bed quotes (from the article):

He soon became ill again and died on 30 May 1778. The accounts of his deathbed have been numerous and varying, and it has not been possible to establish the details of what precisely occurred. His enemies related that he repented and accepted the last rites given by a Catholic priest, or that he died under great torment, while his adherents told how he was defiant to his last breath.[18] According to one story, his last words were, "Now is not the time for making new enemies." It was his response to a priest at the side of his deathbed, asking Voltaire to renounce Satan.

I submit that the many things Gagarin was supposed to have said might well be as fictitious as the many versions of Voltaire's deathbed quotes.

Last edited by TimCallahan; 6th January 2013 at 02:01 PM.
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 02:12 PM   #85
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,616
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
It's just a joke. That looks to me like a pretty typical sample of the Russian sense of humour.
I suspected as much, but there does seem to have been taken seriously by some people.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 03:38 PM   #86
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,126
Quote:
You started with misapplying the conlusion "you can't prove negative," and that affected the rest of your view. There have been two approaches assumed by judicial systems: 1) guilty until proven innocent, 2) innocent until proven guilty.
Another Epix Fail(tm)


Two points:

1 This isn't a judicial system. It's a skeptics forum.
2 This isn't a judicial system. It's a skeptics forum..

Better luck next time.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 03:45 PM   #87
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,126
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Does there really need to be yet another thread in which a absurd and inaccurate story is contrived, as an excuse to attack a position that nobody seems to hold except the OP?

Welcome to the Land Of Word Salad.... again.

Whilst it might be fun and deconstruct the post to find exactly how many untruths it contains, I'm going for a run instead.

Behold the silly Epix world.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 03:48 PM   #88
Kid Eager
Illuminator
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,557
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Another Epix Fail(tm)


Two points:

1 This isn't a judicial system. It's a skeptics forum.
2 This isn't a judicial system. It's a skeptics forum..

Better luck next time.
Imagine if it was a judicial system. This thread would have trouble proving it had standing to plead.... or what the claim was.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 03:51 PM   #89
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,126
Originally Posted by epix View Post
The OP never mentions any conversation between Gagarin and the flight control folks. So what do you try to deny?

You, as an atheist, shouldn't contribute to the frequent exclamation "Jesus," as a verbal equivalent of head shaking.

Why not? What's to stop them?


Jesus ***** Dead Guy on a Cross!!!11eleven!1

So there!
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 04:00 PM   #90
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,126
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Imagine if it was a judicial system. This thread would have trouble proving it had standing to plead.... or what the claim was.
I can easily imagine the judge: " Huh? WTF? I missed a fishing trip for . . . for what?"
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 04:11 PM   #91
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,326
Originally Posted by epix View Post
The definition of faith prevents your suggested method of confirmation. You, as an anti-religion activist, should know that to spare yourself an embarrassment.
You brought it up in the first place. If your god can often be found under beds, then it's easy enough to disprove the existence of your god. The problem that theists always present is a definitive lack of any kind of definition of their god that is testable or really coherent. Do that first and then we can have a rational conversation.

I am not an anti-religion activist, whatever that means. I think you have a mighty strong persecution complex going on there.
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 06:29 PM   #92
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,468
Originally Posted by epix View Post

You, as an atheist, shouldn't contribute to the frequent exclamation "Jesus," as a verbal equivalent of head shaking.
Why the hell not? What's next? Persons can't argue science if they use the word "sundown?" Or are you just jealous because when we hit our thumbs with a hammer we can yell "Jesus H. Christ!" without blaspheming?
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 01:31 AM   #93
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
Absolute rubbish. The title of this thread, which, I assume, you chose by conscious intention, is "The Empirical Evidence of a Non-Existing God." So, you are, in essence, demanding that atheist prove the non-existence of God. I pointed out that you cannot prove a negative. It appears to me that you are the one with the agenda here.
You just continue to build on your false, TimCallahanTM conclusions. The OP doesn't leave much of an impression of me "demanding that atheist prove the non-existence of God." On the contrary: if the atheists like you hadn't assumed their reflexive defense position that unleashed a torrent of more or less incoherent denials the shoot-at-will style, you would have already found out that your conclusion about my intention was wrong and that I oriented the topic in the opposite direction than the one you look toward.

The rest of you scribble suffers from the same fallacious conclusions, as the one I just addressed. But I woud touch upon at least one.
Quote:
The dictum that you can't prove a negative [...]
You don't distinguish between "proof" and "evidence." (Note the OP title.)When you learn the difference, explain it to me how you understand it. See, there is a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "innocent until 'evidenced' guilty." But since the proof of guilt is often based on the submitted evidence, there is a need to define the terms when they are used as arguments of analogy in transition cases.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 01:38 AM   #94
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
Ok, then tell me, in your words, what you would consider evidence of god not existing.

I still want to know.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 01:44 AM   #95
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
What would evidence of a god not existing look like?
Don't take it as an insult, but I'm surprised to see a rational question.

That's what the OP car was heading for, but you need a 4-wheel drive to negotiate the muddy road ahead. I would like to answer it, but I need to drive something different.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 02:16 AM   #96
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,616
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Don't take it as an insult, but I'm surprised to see a rational question.

That's what the OP car was heading for, but you need a 4-wheel drive to negotiate the muddy road ahead. I would like to answer it, but I need to drive something different.
So you won't be answering his question, then?
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 02:36 AM   #97
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 16,358
Originally Posted by epix View Post
You just continue to build on your false, TimCallahanTM conclusions. The OP doesn't leave much of an impression of me "demanding that atheist prove the non-existence of God." On the contrary: if the atheists like you hadn't assumed their reflexive defense position that unleashed a torrent of more or less incoherent denials the shoot-at-will style, you would have already found out that your conclusion about my intention was wrong and that I oriented the topic in the opposite direction than the one you look toward.

The rest of you scribble suffers from the same fallacious conclusions, as the one I just addressed. But I woud touch upon at least one.

You don't distinguish between "proof" and "evidence." (Note the OP title.)When you learn the difference, explain it to me how you understand it. See, there is a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "innocent until 'evidenced' guilty." But since the proof of guilt is often based on the submitted evidence, there is a need to define the terms when they are used as arguments of analogy in transition cases.

As a trial lawyer, I can tell you professionally that your last paragraph above is utterly meaningless - just nonsense words strung together with nonsense.
__________________
"I recognize the problem ... but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up." Jabba

What is my Gladiator Profile?
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 08:34 AM   #98
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
As a trial lawyer, I can tell you professionally that your last paragraph above is utterly meaningless - just nonsense words strung together with nonsense.
Then go ahead and tell me. I won't call the detour trolling. I'm especially curious about you showing me that "evidence" and "proof" - the words I used in the last paragraph - are actually "nonsense words" lacking any meaning. Don't dissapoint me...
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 08:54 AM   #99
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Don't take it as an insult, but I'm surprised to see a rational question.

That's what the OP car was heading for, but you need a 4-wheel drive to negotiate the muddy road ahead. I would like to answer it, but I need to drive something different.

So answer.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 10:02 AM   #100
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Evidence?

Q: What's the difference between something that cannot be detected and something that isn't there?

A: Nothing.

Bob: I have a dragon in my garage.
Tim: Cool, let's go have a look.
Bob: Okay but I have to warn you, you can't see it.
Tim: Can I hear it?
Bob: No.
Tim: Can I smell it?
Bob: No.
Tim: How do I know it's there?
Bob: Do you have evidence it's not there?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 10:05 AM   #101
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Evidence?

Bob: Oh look, it's the emperor.
Tim: Oh my god, he's naked.
Bob: No, he is wearing special clothes.
Tim: Why can't I see them?
Bob: Only those who are not stupid can see them.
Tim: I don't believe they are there.
Bob: Prove it?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 10:22 AM   #102
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Then go ahead and tell me. I won't call the detour trolling. I'm especially curious about you showing me that "evidence" and "proof" - the words I used in the last paragraph - are actually "nonsense words" lacking any meaning. Don't dissapoint me...
It's the way you strung the words together that make them nonsense. I'll leave it to the trial lawyer to explain why. One s and two ps in disappointment, by the way.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 05:31 PM   #103
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
So answer.
Maybe tomorrow. I'm trying to find an info that the Russians declassified in 2010 - supposedly. I can't use Google for this purpose and the results of Russian search engines are not easy to navigate through.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 05:35 PM   #104
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Maybe tomorrow. I'm trying to find an info that the Russians declassified in 2010 - supposedly. I can't use Google for this purpose and the results of Russian search engines are not easy to navigate through.
Удачи вам в этом. Although what this has do do with a non-existent god is a mystery.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 05:50 PM   #105
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Q: What's the difference between something that cannot be detected and something that isn't there?

A: Nothing.

Bob: I have a dragon in my garage.
Tim: Cool, let's go have a look.
Bob: Okay but I have to warn you, you can't see it.
Tim: Can I hear it?
Bob: No.
Tim: Can I smell it?
Bob: No.
Tim: How do I know it's there?
Bob: Do you have evidence it's not there?
Tim doesn't claim anything and yet he is asked to provide some evidence. Name the fallacy.

The Bardus fallacy.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 06:00 PM   #106
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Tim doesn't claim anything and yet he is asked to provide some evidence. Name the fallacy.

The Bardus fallacy.
What is the fallacy of believing in imaginary beings called?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 06:03 PM   #107
Ladewig
Hipster alien
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 20,060
Originally Posted by epix View Post
The atheists living in the past two centuries were always extremely desirous to stumble upon empirical evidence showing that God is a myth - the kind of evidence that would mortally wound the kind of faith with which Christianity defends the opposite view.
LOLwut?

No, Epix, no.
__________________
Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 06:14 PM   #108
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Enya should re-record her hit. Fail away, fail away.......
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 07:04 PM   #109
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Tim doesn't claim anything and yet he is asked to provide some evidence.
Are you Tim? I didn't think so. Try again.

Q: What's the difference between something that cannot be detected and something that isn't there?

A: Nothing.

Bob: I have a dragon in my garage.
Tim: Cool, let's go have a look.
Bob: Okay but I have to warn you, you can't see it.
Tim: Can I hear it?
Bob: No.
Tim: Can I smell it?
Bob: No.
Tim: How do I know it's there?
Bob: Do you have evidence it's not there?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 07:24 PM   #110
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,468
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Tim doesn't claim anything and yet he is asked to provide some evidence. Name the fallacy.

The Bardus fallacy.
Indeed, the Bardus fallacy is, in short, that Bob is a bardus for claiming that Tim's skepticism of Bob's unprovable dragon is unwarranted unless Tim can come up with a positive disproof. Bob is a bardus, in other words, for demanding empirical evidence of non-existence when he cannot provide empirical evidence of existence. Gee, where did I see someone doing that recently?
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 05:56 AM   #111
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Indeed, the Bardus fallacy is, in short, that Bob is a bardus for claiming that Tim's skepticism of Bob's unprovable dragon is unwarranted unless Tim can come up with a positive disproof. Bob is a bardus, in other words, for demanding empirical evidence of non-existence when he cannot provide empirical evidence of existence. Gee, where did I see someone doing that recently?
No, that case of bardus fallacy doesn't show any Tim's skepticism, because he never displayed one. In his last question, he just inquired about an option of detection and Bob's answer broke the rule according to which logical fallacies can exist. In other words, the conversation doesn't show what was intended.

Evidence of absence is formally guided by modus tollens. In propositional logic

P --> Q
~Q
~P

and the consequence is what you see being done recently.

Last edited by epix; 8th January 2013 at 05:58 AM.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 10:12 AM   #112
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by epix View Post


and the consequence is what you see being done recently.
What has been done recently? Can you please be more clear in your posts? Referring to something that has been done and then not saying what is not helpful if you want to be understood. The past tense of ''see'' is ''saw''.

Last edited by dafydd; 8th January 2013 at 10:16 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 11:01 AM   #113
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by epix View Post
No, that case of bardus fallacy doesn't show any Tim's skepticism, because he never displayed one. In his last question, he just inquired about an option of detection and Bob's answer broke the rule according to which logical fallacies can exist. In other words, the conversation doesn't show what was intended.

Evidence of absence is formally guided by modus tollens. In propositional logic

P --> Q
~Q
~P

and the consequence is what you see being done recently.
Q: What's the difference between something that cannot be detected and something that isn't there?

Bob: Do you have empirical evidence of a non-existing dragon?

Originally Posted by OP
The atheists living in the past two centuries were always extremely desirous to stumble upon empirical evidence showing that God is a myth - the kind of evidence that would mortally wound the kind of faith with which Christianity defends the opposite view. No luck, though
  • Epix = no evidence of a non-existing god.
  • Bob = no evidence of a non existing dragon.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 11:09 AM   #114
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post

  • Epix = no evidence of a non-existing god.
  • Bob = no evidence of a non existing dragon.
That's the thread summed up. Next fail please.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 11:33 AM   #115
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
I can't find much on "bardus". If anyone has a link I would appreciate it. All I could find was Argumentum Ex Bardus. It appears that it is the Evidence of absence fallacy, a very misunderstood fallacy in part because it is poorly worded. If I can't find any evidence of my wife at home then that is evidence that she is absent from home. Absence of evidence is evidence. It's not conclusive evidence. If every attempt to locate my wife at home fails then it is likely that she is not at home (<100% >0%)

Bob: I've got a dragon in my garage.
Tim: Let's go see it.
Bob: You can't it is invisible.
Tim: Then I am skeptical of its existence and will adopt the null hypothesis until you can produce some evidence.

Now for the fun stuff.
  • The wiki article quotes Carl Sagan who points out that drawing definite conclusions (anything other than a less than 100% probability) from the absence of evidence is an argument from ignorance.
  • My example was borrowed from Carl Sagan.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.

Last edited by RandFan; 8th January 2013 at 11:35 AM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 12:32 PM   #116
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
So answer.
Suppose that you want to come up with empirical evidence that God doesn't exist. The reality of things may dictate that you abandon such an idea given the fact that there exist a radical form of atheism whose adherents surely contemplated such an idea as well. If you assume that some radical atheists have received higher education, but failed in their presumed attempt to evict God from the minds of the theists, then what would make you think that you can succeed?

Actually you can attempt a "feasibility study" just for the heck of it to see what obstacles are awaiting ahead and then decide if it is worth to buy the tools that remove the obstacles.

You basically deal with the empirical evidence of particular absence. You can as well consult the scientific library of solutions where you look up the most similar problem that has been solved to serve you as a guide. Actually you may get lucky with the word "similarity" in the case where the particular absence is represented by God himself.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...y-science.html

The first question is whether the formulation of your problem is similar to the solved problem that you just found. Obviously it isn't; it is the opposite, because the search for Higgs boson is a case of empirical evidence of presence. But that's not really true, because identical + different = similar The only difference in the case of Higgs boson may be the "polarity." If you look at the identity

|-a| = |a|

then you know what I mean. You are concern about the a and this is what you find out:

Suppose there is hypothetical environment P. If that environment once existed, then element Q must still exist. Finding the element Q is sufficient and necessary to upgrade hypothetical P to theoretical P. The opposite outcome - the absence of Q - downgrade P, perhaps to a belief. And that's the idea behind the search for the "God's particle." P is the Higgs field and Q is the Higgs boson. You extract modus tollens out of the logical formality and you are on your way. In a practical framework, the extraction looks like this:

There were two options: the boson would be found or not. The search was a big deal for the physicist and so bets were made. But if bets are made, then they must be settled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/sc...bets.html?_r=0

That means you can't search indefinitely. The physicists agreed beforehand on a reasonable time frame during which the search would take place. If the CERN installation failed to detect the data that were needed for the confirmation of the existence of what was searched for, the bets would be settled too. In other words, if the people working the Large Hadron Collider failed to find Higgs boson in a given time, such an outcome would be accepted by the scientific community as the evidence of absence - there would be no such thing as Higgs boson. It follows that there is and has always been something like empirical evidence of absence. And if it is, then "Empirical Evidence of God's Non-Existence" cannot possible stumble over some denial worded as "you can't prove negative" with no case of scientific research outcome backing the claim included.

Now the similarity with the search for "God's particle" becomes far less perceptible: Higgs boson was theoretically known to live in the proton. Where does God live?

Hmm.

Last edited by epix; 8th January 2013 at 12:36 PM.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 12:36 PM   #117
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by epix View Post
Suppose that you want to come up with empirical evidence that God doesn't exist.
James Randi explained quite clearly why this is nonsense.

James Randi Lecture @ Caltech - Cant Prove a Negative
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 01:42 PM   #118
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by epix
Suppose that you want to come up with empirical evidence that God doesn't exist.
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
James Randi explained quite clearly why this is nonsense.

James Randi Lecture @ Caltech - Cant Prove a Negative
Suppose that you want to come up with empirical evidence that Higgs boson doesn't exist. You decide to spend billions of $$$ to acquire the evidence; you decide to build the Large Hadron Collider, but James Randi shows up and tells you that you will waste all that money for nothing, because "you can't prove the negative."
Common sense prevailed, scientific thinking prevailed and this is the evidence of it:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...5/lhc-sim.jpeg
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 01:54 PM   #119
shuttlt
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,810
Surely half the problem is that "God" isn't remotely well defined?

You can surely "prove" the non-existence of a god that answers prayers in a statistically significant way every bit as much as one could have "proved" the non-existence of the Higgs Boson.

Now, a God that doesn't interfere, or a God that wants to hide...? One can't test for that at all.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2013, 01:56 PM   #120
epix
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I can't find much on "bardus". If anyone has a link I would appreciate it. All I could find was Argumentum Ex Bardus. It appears that it is the Evidence of absence fallacy, a very misunderstood fallacy in part because it is poorly worded. If I can't find any evidence of my wife at home then that is evidence that she is absent from home. Absence of evidence is evidence. It's not conclusive evidence. If every attempt to locate my wife at home fails then it is likely that she is not at home (<100% >0%)

Bob: I've got a dragon in my garage.
Tim: Let's go see it.
Bob: You can't it is invisible.
Tim: Then I am skeptical of its existence and will adopt the null hypothesis until you can produce some evidence.

Now for the fun stuff.
  • The wiki article quotes Carl Sagan who points out that drawing definite conclusions (anything other than a less than 100% probability) from the absence of evidence is an argument from ignorance.
  • My example was borrowed from Carl Sagan.
The OP title clearly applies to the evidence of absence and not to absence of evidence. Why do you let the latter in as a constructive argument? It's obviously irrelevant to the topic.
epix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.