Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Give a concrete example which illustrates your steps.


(18-12-2015 11:30 PM)Ace Wrote:  step1: properly define what your trying to prove
step2. develop a test to empirically figure out if it exists against the null hypothesis
step3. accept the results
rinse repeat

science 101
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
You say "There is no default status" [of things in the world, which default status is existence].

Prove that there is no default status of things in the world which default status is existence.

And tell readers why a tautology is going nowhere, because you really don't know the purpose of a tautology

What about this tautology:

Paco is Francisco.

Okay, where is the tautology in:
Quote:1. First we are absolutely certain in our knowledge that the default status of things in the world is existence."
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid917870

Where is the tautology there?

You see, you keep repeating wrong things you read from imprecise writers, and never do any genuine critical thinking on what you read which is wrong, and you also read wrongly: all because you do not have any idea of critical reading and critical thinking, much less the skill.

No flying monkeys is not the default status of things in the world, no flying monkeys is the default status of flying monkeys in your limited span of the world.

(18-12-2015 10:58 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(18-12-2015 04:54 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  1. First we are absolutely certain in our knowledge that the default status of things in the world is existence.

Existence is the staus of things that exist. It's a wonderful little tautology that goes nowhere. Surprisingly, you've actually regressed from proving that you have a nose.

By conrast, the staus of things that do not exist is nonexistence. Look around your house for flying monkeys. See? Nonexistant.

There is no default status. This is not a Windoze installer where we have to uncheck the "Install Flying Monkeys?" option.

Congrats on giving me a new appreciation of geological rates. This thread is getting to its point at roughly the speed of continental drift.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2015, 04:44 PM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2015 04:48 PM by Commonsensei.)
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
[Image: 200_s.gif]

You may be wondering what that above is.

I'm thinking the same thing.

Whatever it is. You should get to it.


It's a point.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Commonsensei's post
19-12-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(19-12-2015 03:59 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  You say "There is no default status" [of things in the world, which default status is existence].

No. I don't. You've added the latter part and changed the meaning of what I said. I said that there is no default status. Full Stop. When I conceive of some cracked-brained notion, such as The Mighty Stratospheric Simian Empire, I don't have to go and make sure that Flying Monkeys haven't taken over the world. And that's because there is no "default status."

Quote:And tell readers why a tautology is going nowhere, because you really don't know the purpose of a tautology

[Image: 300px-Nuclear_Facepalm.jpg]
I'm going to guess that the majority of my readers know why tautologies go nowhere. If you had bothered to find out what a tautology is (hint: try the first google result) you would know that it is, by definition:
(1) True and
(2) Meaningless.

All tautologies go nowhere. That's what they do. And don't forget The First Rule of Tautology Club.

Quote:Okay, where is the tautology in:
Quote:1. First we are absolutely certain in our knowledge that the default status of things in the world is existence."
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid917870

Where is the tautology there?

Within the definition of the term "things in the world". It's a sloppy term that limits discussion to our little ball of dirt and hides within it the term 'things [that exist] in the world.' Still sloppy but now you can at least see the obvious uselessness of trying to demonstrate that 'the default status of things that exist in the world is existence.' Like any good tautology, it's absolutely true and utterly useless.

Unless you are trying to argue that "things in the world" should include a subset of things that don't exist at which point I will likely find myself incapable of formulating a coherent response.

Quote:You see, you keep repeating wrong things you read from imprecise writers, and never do any genuine critical thinking on what you read which is wrong, and you also read wrongly: all because you do not have any idea of critical reading and critical thinking, much less the skill.

That would have been hilariously ironic had it not been so heartfelt.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
19-12-2015, 05:39 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(19-12-2015 04:44 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  [Image: 200_s.gif]

You may be wondering what that above is.

I'm thinking the same thing.

Whatever it is. You should get to it.

My magic eightball says that whatever his point is, it smells a lot like the Argument from First Cause. Becasue 13th century philosophy is something we might have overlooked.

Sadly, Pachomius is ignoring one of the basic rules of philosophy, which says that if you find yourself redefining "existence" or "knowledge" then you probably ought to put the chalk down and back away from the blackboard.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
20-12-2015, 06:13 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
In re "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

========================


Thanks a lot for your replies.

I guess we have to re-start from the beginning.

You see, you keep up bringing up old things from your reading, but I like us all to start with a fresh mind and ground ourselves on critical thinking.

The hardest thing with starting a thread is how to obtain connection with posters; because the way I see it, there are words in a title which a poster will as from a cue react to, not to the understanding of the whole thread, and even not relevant to the thread at all, it is like a poster is a search engine, say like Google.

Take this experiment, enter into Google the word, justice, and see what the first hit of Google is going to be, in fact it is the following:

Quote:https://www.google.com/search?q=justice&...8&oe=utf-8


About 683,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
Search Results

Justice: Tween Clothing & Fashion For Girls
http://www.shopjustice.com/

Justice is your one-stop-shop for the cutest & most on-trend styles in tween girls' clothing. Shop Justice for the best tween fashions in a variety of sizes.
Store Locator
Find a Justice girls' clothing store near you. ... more with our ...

New Arrivals
Shop girls' new arrivals to find all the newest styles & fashion for ...
Clothes
Discover the hottest new girls' clothes in our New Arrivals ...

Tops
Home • clothes • tops. Order by 12/21 for Christmas delivery ...
Girls Clothes Sale
Shop fashionable girls clothes sale at Justice. Our selection of the ...

Backpacks & Lunch Totes
backpacks & lunch totes. Medallion Backpack ... Dye ...
More results from shopjustice.com »


I chose the place to put the present thread in, namely,
The Thinking Atheist Forum › The Heavy Stuff › Atheism and Theism

So, as this is the website with the name, The Thinking Atheist, I assume that atheists here will do thinking, and first and foremost, doing thinking that can be described as critical thinking.

Then it is about The Heavy Stuff, so we have to do real heavy thinking, not just writing on the first thing that comes to your mind like Google, which is neither thinking, much less heavy.

Lastly, it is about about heavy stuff, Atheism and Theism, so it is about existence or non-existence of an entity with the name God.

I notice time and again that when atheists see the word God, they already start from their attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster, and that is not the way to contribute to a thread with the title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The title has to do with existence or non-existence, but the focus is on existence, and directly not on God, but on something, anything at all, that exists.

I am inviting everyone to work together, you and I, to agree on how to prove that something, anything at all, exists.

So, don't bring in God and much less with your attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster: because that is no way to be into thinking, thinking as in The Thinking Atheist, and it is nothing of any heavy stuff, but speaking from as from a cue like Google.

Anyway, may I invite us all starting with yours truly to locate what is the important word in the title of the present thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The important word is 'exists', then the word something, and the author of the thread is inviting everyone, us all whether atheists (and I presume predominantly the members here are atheists) or not, and yours truly is non-atheist, to work with thinking, that is heavy stuff, not anything like writing as from a cue on the flying spaghetti monster.

Perhaps I should have started the present thread with trying to invite us all to work together seriously, grounding ourselves on critical thinking, on what is existence as opposite to non-existence, instead of bringing up the idea that the default status of things in the world is existence.

What about this suggestion, suppose one of you an atheist propose the thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, let us take a diversion and think about this title for a thread from you or from me, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

That is an experiment, to find out what is our each one's instinct right away to the proposal on starting a thread with the following title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, what I have in mind is that we start from our own personal thinking, instead of bringing in what you read and retained in rote memory in your heart and mind, the attitude like God is a flying spaghetti monster.

Yes, you will react that for you atheists the idea of God is so irrational that you have to resort to ridiculous analogies to what? to avoid thinking seriously, with some fresh examination on critical thinking, what exactly is so absurd and ridiculous about the concept of God; but first, may I, and forgive me, request that you have to ask yourselves, what is my [your] concept of God, or more correctly what is the concept of God that is propounded by serious thinkers who do not take refuge in ridiculous analogies, but sincerely and with heavy examination, investigate the concept of God as propounded by theists, like perhaps, in His role in the universe, or even more broadly, in the realm of existence, existence as opposite non-existence.

You will challenge me, that there is no role for God in anything at all, but that is already a presumption, specifically a gratuitous allegation; it will not be a gratuitous allegation if you have examined the idea of role in existence, then present your conclusion, on what is a role, what is God, and why from your critical thinking God cannot be at least in term of concepts, having any role in existence.

So, let us all take a diversion, to take up seriously the feasibility of a thread with the title, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."


I await with excitement your reactions to that proposal above, and forgive me, I will concentrate on your reactions to that proposal above.

And I promise you, I will follow your lead to contribute to the development of the thread,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 06:16 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  In re "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

========================


Thanks a lot for your replies.

I guess we have to re-start from the beginning.

You see, you keep up bringing up old things from your reading, but I like us all to start with a fresh mind and ground ourselves on critical thinking.

The hardest thing with starting a thread is how to obtain connection with posters; because the way I see it, there are words in a title which a poster will as from a cue react to, not to the understanding of the whole thread, and even not relevant to the thread at all, it is like a poster is a search engine, say like Google.

Take this experiment, enter into Google the word, justice, and see what the first hit of Google is going to be, in fact it is the following:

Quote:https://www.google.com/search?q=justice&...8&oe=utf-8


About 683,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
Search Results

Justice: Tween Clothing & Fashion For Girls
http://www.shopjustice.com/

Justice is your one-stop-shop for the cutest & most on-trend styles in tween girls' clothing. Shop Justice for the best tween fashions in a variety of sizes.
Store Locator
Find a Justice girls' clothing store near you. ... more with our ...

New Arrivals
Shop girls' new arrivals to find all the newest styles & fashion for ...
Clothes
Discover the hottest new girls' clothes in our New Arrivals ...

Tops
Home • clothes • tops. Order by 12/21 for Christmas delivery ...
Girls Clothes Sale
Shop fashionable girls clothes sale at Justice. Our selection of the ...

Backpacks & Lunch Totes
backpacks & lunch totes. Medallion Backpack ... Dye ...
More results from shopjustice.com »


I chose the place to put the present thread in, namely,
The Thinking Atheist Forum › The Heavy Stuff › Atheism and Theism

So, as this is the website with the name, The Thinking Atheist, I assume that atheists here will do thinking, and first and foremost, doing thinking that can be described as critical thinking.

Then it is about The Heavy Stuff, so we have to do real heavy thinking, not just writing on the first thing that comes to your mind like Google, which is neither thinking, much less heavy.

Lastly, it is about about heavy stuff, Atheism and Theism, so it is about existence or non-existence of an entity with the name God.

I notice time and again that when atheists see the word God, they already start from their attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster, and that is not the way to contribute to a thread with the title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The title has to do with existence or non-existence, but the focus is on existence, and directly not on God, but on something, anything at all, that exists.

I am inviting everyone to work together, you and I, to agree on how to prove that something, anything at all, exists.

So, don't bring in God and much less with your attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster: because that is no way to be into thinking, thinking as in The Thinking Atheist, and it is nothing of any heavy stuff, but speaking from as from a cue like Google.

Anyway, may I invite us all starting with yours truly to locate what is the important word in the title of the present thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The important word is 'exists', then the word something, and the author of the thread is inviting everyone, us all whether atheists (and I presume predominantly the members here are atheists) or not, and yours truly is non-atheist, to work with thinking, that is heavy stuff, not anything like writing as from a cue on the flying spaghetti monster.

Perhaps I should have started the present thread with trying to invite us all to work together seriously, grounding ourselves on critical thinking, on what is existence as opposite to non-existence, instead of bringing up the idea that the default status of things in the world is existence.

What about this suggestion, suppose one of you an atheist propose the thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, let us take a diversion and think about this title for a thread from you or from me, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

That is an experiment, to find out what is our each one's instinct right away to the proposal on starting a thread with the following title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, what I have in mind is that we start from our own personal thinking, instead of bringing in what you read and retained in rote memory in your heart and mind, the attitude like God is a flying spaghetti monster.

Yes, you will react that for you atheists the idea of God is so irrational that you have to resort to ridiculous analogies to what? to avoid thinking seriously, with some fresh examination on critical thinking, what exactly is so absurd and ridiculous about the concept of God; but first, may I, and forgive me, request that you have to ask yourselves, what is my [your] concept of God, or more correctly what is the concept of God that is propounded by serious thinkers who do not take refuge in ridiculous analogies, but sincerely and with heavy examination, investigate the concept of God as propounded by theists, like perhaps, in His role in the universe, or even more broadly, in the realm of existence, existence as opposite non-existence.

You will challenge me, that there is no role for God in anything at all, but that is already a presumption, specifically a gratuitous allegation; it will not be a gratuitous allegation if you have examined the idea of role in existence, then present your conclusion, on what is a role, what is God, and why from your critical thinking God cannot be at least in term of concepts, having any role in existence.

So, let us all take a diversion, to take up seriously the feasibility of a thread with the title, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."


I await with excitement your reactions to that proposal above, and forgive me, I will concentrate on your reactions to that proposal above.

And I promise you, I will follow your lead to contribute to the development of the thread,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

TL;DR

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 08:01 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
He actually states that atheists are making presuppositions on God's role in the universe and is basically pouting that it's not fair. What in the actual shit? Piled in with that mind numbing chunck of faulty logical is a bowl of word salad that would choke a competitive eater.

And still no point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 08:15 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 06:16 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  ...

TL;DR

TI;DC

Too In(s)ane; Don't Care

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
20-12-2015, 09:12 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
We can say something does not exist when there is no evidence of existence. This isn't to say that the thing doesn't exist, but at present, there exists no reasons to believe it does.

Something's we can prove don't exist through measurement and detection. Something's we can prove don't exist because of impossible situations.

My car doesn't contain a large live elephant.

Often times a god is defined as something that doesn't exist. Invisible, immaterial, outside of reality.

Other times a god meets every definition of something that is imaginary.

Spending time in our finite lives trying to prove that something does not exist is fruitless. Meaning its a waste of time that we can't get back. That is why its best to believe that something exists based upon evidence, otherwise you could very well waste the one life we all are sure we have in pursuit of an imaginary fantasy that only exists as a delusion in your mind.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: