Lack of evidence=proof it doesn't exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2012, 02:11 AM
RE: Lack of evidence=proof it doesn't exist?
(24-07-2012 08:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-07-2012 06:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Girlyman.

Uhhhhh, are you trying to make Cantor explode with that gif?

Fucker started it when he caused me to reread Metaphysics Book XII on a Sunday morning before breakfast or even coffee. I'll change my sig when I have fully recovered from that. Aristotle is every bit the yokozuna I remember. ... This might take a while. Smile

(24-07-2012 06:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt ... it's all we fucking got.

Evil. The lot of yas.

As to the OP, ya can't prove shit without axiom. The problem with god being, fuckers keep changing the hypothesis.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-07-2012, 02:27 AM
RE: Lack of evidence=proof it doesn't exist?
(24-07-2012 01:56 PM)Magoo Wrote:  So I have been thinking about gnostic atheism a little bit. Now, the arguments I am about to present are probably flawed and wrong, but sure I would like to tell you anyway Drinking Beverage

1. Okay, lets say for example that somebody believes there is a lump of metal under a certain area. You then get a metal detector, assuming of course that is working normally, and you scan over the area that the person believes there is lump of metal beneath. The metal detector shows no result. Now, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a lump of metal there, but yet you know there isn't because of this lack of evidence.

Of course, this alone does not need to be the evidence. Your equipment could be broken, or the lump of iron could be a bit deeper, so the detector could not detect it. This was only debunking one of the theories. But other theories still exist and could be true, in cooperation with this, first one..

Quote:2. Another example, you want to know whether or not your phone is in your kitchen. You know that is was turned on when you last had it, which was only 10 minutes ago, the battery was full, it wasn't on silent, and it has full reception. In order to see if your phone is in your phone is in your kitchen, you call it using another phone. No sound occurs. You would then conclude that your phone is definately not in the kitchen. Why? Well there is a lack of evidence to suggest it is in there, because you just called it and nothing happened, therefore you know it isn't in there because of this.

This is not the lack of evidence, this is evidence that your phone is not in the kitchen. There is of course a weird thing that could happen, that is if you have covered your phone with a pillow and you can't hear it, but since it is the kitchen, we can assume pretty certainly that there were no pillows there to begin with, so the lack of phone ring could be taken as a real evidence.

Both of these claims are good, they can be proven or not.

How does this relate to god(s)? No idea. As I see it, one of the first gods was the "lightning god", as soon as people were able to explain and understand lightning, something new was god. And so we continued to explain all sorts of "gods" until now we came to this stupidity that uses philosophy and metaphors and archaic text with triple meanings, so they have just complicated things to explain. We will eventually outgrow our modern gods and find some new god to worship...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 09:59 AM
RE: Lack of evidence=proof it doesn't exist?
(24-07-2012 04:28 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Ok.

1 - You're Albert Einstein and you suggest that there are black holes, but there's no evidence; therefore, they don't exist.

2 - You're the Wright brothers. You suggest humans can fly. None have. Therefore it's impossible.

3 - Someone tells you that there are cars. You sit by the road for five minutes and don't see any; therefore, they don't exist.

4 - Someone tells you there are barracuda. You snorkel for five minutes and don't see any; therefore, they don't exist.

Lack of proof proves nothing. It can be suggestive. Skepticism can be healthy. But proof is definitive. Case closed.

Suggesting that the lack of evidence for God is proof he cannot exist is, drum roll, mental gymnastics.

Hey, Vosur.

Good catch on the universal negative.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

1 - You're Albert Einstein and you suggest that there are black holes, but there's no evidence; therefore, they don't exist

Personally, I loathe this type of statement, mainly for the sloppy somantics and the implied arrogance of science it point to.

You may be Albert, you may suggest, you may suggest and you may have no evidence. This does not mean that black holes dont exist, only that you lack evidence of them.

Science does not bring things into existence by proving them, this style of argument is so easily dismissed as nonsense, the same statement is made obviously ridiculous by saying its 1066 and the battle of hastings is happening in a zero G enviroment because Newton has yet to prove gravity and therefore gravity doesnt exist. Whereas gravity did exist before Newtons proof, like everything else science has proofs of, if it cant be examined it cant be proved, so everything that exists, exists independently of the scientific proof for it.

I know your citing examples, but this one is just so stupid I must vent.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 12:33 PM
RE: Lack of evidence=proof it doesn't exist?
@Humakt

He was not saying that at all. He was trying to show how ridiculous my statements were by saying those things. He was not trying to say that if there is no evidense of black holes therefore they don't exist, he assumed you would realise this so then you could compare them to my statements. Did that make sense? Lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2012 01:30 PM by Peterkin.)
RE: Lack of evidence=proof it doesn't exist?
What if it turns out they do exist, but they're dark purply-green and not so much holes as invaginations?
Does that mean the evidence is faulty, so you have to throw it all out, start over with a new name and description of the object of the quest?
Or do you start with a pile of raw data - observations; evidence - and not name or describe the thing it defines until a picture forms?
Seems to me every one of these god-proof discussions is back-asswards.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2012, 01:38 AM
RE: Lack of evidence=proof it doesn't exist?
(25-07-2012 12:33 PM)Magoo Wrote:  @Humakt

He was not saying that at all. He was trying to show how ridiculous my statements were by saying those things. He was not trying to say that if there is no evidense of black holes therefore they don't exist, he assumed you would realise this so then you could compare them to my statements. Did that make sense? Lol

I got all of that, its not aimed at him. I just find that paticular arguement so poor I have to rant at it.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2012, 11:28 AM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2012 11:34 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Lack of evidence=proof it doesn't exist?
I'll explain, the idea is to initially reject all claims until proven true.

We do this naturally. When we see a book we trust our eyes. You can feel the pages, smell the newness of it and hear it when you change the pages. Thusly we can show through our senses that this things existence is real. Getting other people in to confirm it shows that you are not hallucinating. It proves that your senses are not lying to you.

So in the world the fact that God is undetectable makes the proof as good as any other thing you can imagine that isn't in reality. Like cheese that produces lightning, or a blob that thinks in outer space, or beings made of fire.

By using logic you can show that if the nature of a thing is inconsistent and full of contradictions it's far more likely it doesn't exist.

Logical disproofs http://www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html

I hope that clears things up for you.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: