On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 03:22 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Can't you fucking read? Here are his very own words:

Quote:I don't believe that it is possible for a god to exist.

Quote:I also don't believe it's impossible.

Quote:I don't know whether it is possible or not.
Therefore Matt is in a position of lack of belief, definitely not 1 and definitely not 7.
Capiche?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 12:54 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Free,

What is your take on 14:33 - 16:53 on this video? Do you think that Sagan is saying that he believes that god and loch ness monster are possible? He doesn't seem to think they are impossible, so would you say that he must believe that they are possible?

No, because he used the caveat of "but," when he says, "But that doesn't mean every fraudulent claim needs to be accepted."

In regards to the Lochness Monster, the reason why it could be possible is because we have discovered innumerable new species over the course of our history, which gives us reason to accept it as being possible, even if the possibility is remote.

But in regards to the existence of God, the reason we say it is not possible is that thousands of claims regarding supernatural gods have popped up numerous times over our history, and not one of them has ever shown a shred of evidence or precedent to approach a possibility.

The Lochness Monster possibility has a precedent of other newly discovered animals to build upon.

God does not.

Quote:I would argue that an agnostic can have no belief in regard to whether or not god is possible. Not believing it is impossible, is not the same as believing it is possible.

If he has no beliefs either way, then he is not agnostic.

He is atheistic.

Loch Ness. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I've agreed that A = not A is invalid and shown that if this is a premise in the claim then this premise cannot be used to help substatiate or negate the conclusion.

What conclusion?

You are plucking a completely imaginary, structurally invalid argument out of thin air to insert the statement into. The whole point of the garage dragon analogy is that the statement is invalid and self-contradictory, and is therefore false. That's it. That's all. I have no idea why you seem to be incapable of grasping this.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 02:16 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I never said the existence of god is possible. I don't believe that it is possible for a god to exist. I also don't believe it's impossible. I don't know whether it is possible or not.

If this is the case, it seems you're among the few that honestly just lack a belief.

My position is basically Matt's, although I certainly wouldn't phrase it the same way. We have just gone through a long long thread arguing over the definitions of belief, knowledge, and probability -- without ever coming coming to a consensus. I got quite exasperated. But I suspect our (mine and Matt's) actual position on these matters is pretty close to being the same. We just talk about it in two different languages (effectively).

I would say that we just don't know (and can never know) whether or not God exists. Part of the problem, as others have pointed out, is that there are competing definitions of what "God" is, and some of them are incoherent or so nebulous as to be meaningless.

But I'm good with just saying "I don't know". I lean strongly toward "God doesn't exist", but I would never claim to know that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
20-08-2015, 03:33 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 02:16 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I never said the existence of god is possible. I don't believe that it is possible for a god to exist. I also don't believe it's impossible. I don't know whether it is possible or not.

If this is the case, it seems you're among the few that honestly just lack a belief.

Would you care to back that up with some facts, or is it yet another assertion you have pulled out of your ass? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:33 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 02:24 PM)Free Wrote:  Do you understand that if you do not accept the belief that God is impossible- which means you reject any claims that the existence of God is impossible- that it necessarily implies that you accept the possibility that God does exist?

It doesn't follow that if you don't accept the belief that God is impossible, that this means you reject it.

It certainly does.

"I do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible."

What do you think that means?

If you do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible, then you are therefore rejecting the belief that the existence of God is impossible. That is glaringly obvious.

Hence, if you do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible, then by necessity you default to the belief that teh existence of God is possible.

You can't have one without the other.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:37 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:33 PM)Free Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 03:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It doesn't follow that if you don't accept the belief that God is impossible, that this means you reject it.

It certainly does.

"I do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible."

What do you think that means?

If you do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible, then you are therefore rejecting the belief that the existence of God is impossible. That is glaringly obvious.

Hence, if you do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible, then by necessity you default to the belief that teh existence of God is possible.

You can't have one without the other.

Nah, you're over-reaching.
If I am completely agnostic about the existence of 'X', I neither accept the belief that it is possible for it to exist nor accept the belief that it isn't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-08-2015, 03:43 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You are plucking a completely imaginary, structurally invalid argument out of thin air to insert the statement into. The whole point of the garage dragon analogy is that the statement is invalid and self-contradictory, and is therefore false. That's it. That's all. I have no idea why you seem to be incapable of grasping this.
You are very confused in your understanding of Carl's garage dragon analogy.
And you seem to want to tackle three things here all at the same time, so we aren't going to be able to see eye to eye on this.

Carl doesn't go to length in walking you through the garage dragon analogy to simply point out that the claim has a self contradictory conclusion. He could have done that without the analogy.
You are making his analogy be something that is a waste of time.
You are somehow claiming that Carl's analogy is stating that the conclusion is self contradictory and hence the opposite is true.

With Carl's analogy the conclusion (claim within any premises) is that "there is a fire-breathing dragon in my garage" there is nothing self contradictory about this conclusion.

But if we continue to try and takle the three issues all at once then we are going to continue to travel in swings and roundabouts.
A more structured approach would help us resolve these three ideas. (come to an understanding of each other's position rather than an agreement)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:45 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You are very confused in your understanding of Carl's garage dragon analogy.

I'm really not.

(20-08-2015 03:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  With Carl's analogy the conclusion (claim within any premises) is that "there is a fire-breathing dragon in my garage" there is nothing self contradictory about this conclusion.

"There is no fire-breathing dragon in my garage, but there is a fire-breathing dragon in my garage" absolutely is self-contradictory.

If that isn't the statement being made, then you can answer the question:

What is the difference between a garage dragon and no dragon at all?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 03:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 03:33 PM)Free Wrote:  It certainly does.

"I do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible."

What do you think that means?

If you do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible, then you are therefore rejecting the belief that the existence of God is impossible. That is glaringly obvious.

Hence, if you do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible, then by necessity you default to the belief that the existence of God is possible.

You can't have one without the other.

Nah, you're over-reaching.
If I am completely agnostic about the existence of 'X', I neither accept the belief that it is possible for it to exist nor accept the belief that it isn't.

That position does not represent the singular statement of:

"I do not accept the belief that the existence of God is impossible."

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: