On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 08:54 AM)Free Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 08:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It is a necessary possibility contingent on the words used. Words have meanings.

Sure they have meaning, but it is still a positive claim regardless of their necessity. He is still claiming the existence of God as being a possibility.

Quote:Implicit in the construction of the proposition "X does not exist" is the contrary: "X does exist". This is, as stevil said, basic logic, and what perhaps he did not make clear enough is that it is content agnostic.

Yes, it is basic logic. Yes it is implicit.

Yet still, it is a positive claim. The moment he said that there are two possibilities, he made the positive claim, regardless of what is implicit or logical. He acknowledges those possibilities. The logic is meaningless to my point.

Yes, it is necessary for him to posit both in the construction of the proposition.

If he would have said something to the effect of, "Being agnostic, and although I hold no beliefs either way, it would appear that most people view the situation in such that two possibilities exist."

Then I may not have had a problem. But he made the claim from himself, and not from a general consensus.

Free, isn't it possible to not know whether or not god exists, and also not know whether or not god is possible, while knowing that god's existence is either possible or not, without claiming that it is possible that god exists?

We can go back the other universes. Can't I know that it's either possible or impossible to have other universes, without knowing whether it's possible or not? In other words I know there are only 2 possibilities, but I don't know which one is the right answer?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2015 09:16 AM by Free.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 09:02 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 08:54 AM)Free Wrote:  Sure they have meaning, but it is still a positive claim regardless of their necessity. He is still claiming the existence of God as being a possibility.


Yes, it is basic logic. Yes it is implicit.

Yet still, it is a positive claim. The moment he said that there are two possibilities, he made the positive claim, regardless of what is implicit or logical. He acknowledges those possibilities. The logic is meaningless to my point.

Yes, it is necessary for him to posit both in the construction of the proposition.

If he would have said something to the effect of, "Being agnostic, and although I hold no beliefs either way, it would appear that most people view the situation in such that two possibilities exist."

Then I may not have had a problem. But he made the claim from himself, and not from a general consensus.

Free, isn't it possible to not know whether or not god exists, and also not know whether or not god is possible, while knowing that god's existence is either possible or not, without claiming that it is possible that god exists?

Let me break this down and show you the problem I see.

"and also not know whether or not god is possible, ... while knowing that god's existence is either possible or not ..."

If you don't know whether or not god is possible, then how can you know that god's existence is possible?

That is an obvious logical contradiction, and that is precisely my contention here.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 09:22 AM
On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 08:22 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 08:08 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I see what you're saying with this but I think the "sky is blue" claim is different than a god claim.

It's pretty easy for me see that color is a subjective breakdown of the EM spectrum, so any question regarding color is unlikely to be binary (different animals see color differently, as do different humans).

But I think an existence/occurrence claim is binary. Did Mt. Pinatubo erupt in the 1990's? It's not an ambiguous question. It's yes or no in this case.

"Does God exist?" is actually more like the sky color question than the Mt. Pinatubo question. Because you can't answer it until you have a coherent definition of "God". Good luck with that.

I can only evaluate specific god claims with coherent definitions. If an ambiguous god claim is levied with no specific definition, it's useless anyways.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 09:24 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 09:02 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Free, isn't it possible to not know whether or not god exists, and also not know whether or not god is possible, while knowing that god's existence is either possible or not, without claiming that it is possible that god exists?

Let me break this down and show you the problem I see.

"and also not know whether or not god is possible, ... while knowing that god's existence is either possible or not ..."

If you don't know whether or not god is possible, then how can you know that god's existence is possible?

That is an obvious logical contradiction, and that is precisely my contention here.

Let's look at 2 claims.

1. god is possible

2. god is not possible

I know that one of these 2 claims is true, but I don't know which one.

Same with universes.

1. other universes are possible

2. other universes are not possible

One is true, but I don't know which one. I'm not claiming that other universes are possible, I'm only claiming that one of the 2 options HAS to be true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 09:26 AM
On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 08:24 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 08:08 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I see what you're saying with this but I think the "sky is blue" claim is different than a god claim.

I agree they're different as well, but natural English doesn't really make the distinction.

(21-08-2015 08:08 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It's pretty easy for me see that color is a subjective breakdown of the EM spectrum, so any question regarding color is unlikely to be binary (different animals see color differently, as do different humans).

That isn't quite how I meant it; the proposition, "there is far more scattering of 450nm photons than of 650nm photons in the Earth's atmosphere on a sunny day" is far closer to binary, it's just that to get there requires a great deal of elaboration.
(or, to quote a certain great thinker, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is")

(21-08-2015 08:08 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But I think an existence/occurrence claim is binary. Did Mt. Pinatubo erupt in the 1990's? It's not an ambiguous question. It's yes or no in this case.

Sure, but that's because all of the components in the proposition (implicit and explicit) are well defined and unambiguous. Binary exclusivity is a consequence of how our propositions are constructed.

(there are also certain tedious people who are incredibly insistent that no knowledge is perfect and absolute, but even then they don't generally do so for these kinds of statements - only where it suits them!)

Like I said in my previous post in response to grasshopper, I can't evaluate ambiguous or non-specified god claims. They are incoherent and negligible because if they are ambiguous or non-specific, then they aren't describing a specific entity or thing or occurrence.

You can give a spectrum for light. So even in the subjective example where ambiguity exists, you can still define specific thresholds. If a theist with a god claim can't, then their god claim and definition are utterly pointless and indistinguishable from their imagination. So I treat it as their imagination or their ignorance and I still reject their ambiguous god claim. Only in this case, I reject it because it isn't defined clearly or defined in a way that it could be testable of falsifiable.

I can't make the god claims for the theists.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
21-08-2015, 09:29 AM
On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 09:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Let me break this down and show you the problem I see.

"and also not know whether or not god is possible, ... while knowing that god's existence is either possible or not ..."

If you don't know whether or not god is possible, then how can you know that god's existence is possible?

That is an obvious logical contradiction, and that is precisely my contention here.

Let's look at 2 claims.

1. god is possible

2. god is not possible

I know that one of these 2 claims is true, but I don't know which one.

Same with universes.

1. other universes are possible

2. other universes are not possible

One is true, but I don't know which one. I'm not claiming that other universes are possible, I'm only claiming that one of the 2 options HAS to be true.

And for the universe claims, all evidence right now points to proposition 2 as the only evidence we have is of this universe. Being able to conceive of universes with other parameters, doesn't mean they are plausible.

But (and here's the big but I'm how this differs from god claims), other universes are hypothesized to interact with our universe. Making them testable and detectable. So we can actually look for evidence to change our position.

God claims (when they specify themselves) can be tested too and none have ever panned out. So the claims are only logically rejected.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 09:33 AM
On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Is it possible I'm wrong to reject the god or multiple universe claims?

All I can safely say is that there is a paucity of evidence for either, so there is no logical reason to accept them as plausible. So no, there exists no reason to think I'm wrong to reject them.

Now, I remain open to evidence and if evidence of either is found, I'll exclaim "well, fuck me" and amend my position.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
21-08-2015, 09:50 AM
On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Something else I'm seeing is that this discussion relates primarily to these nebulous god claims. But these god claims can't be taken seriously and should be rejected because of their vagueness.

If a student turned in a paper to me where their primary thesis was so vague and ambiguous that anything and everything they said after that could be wildly interpreted any way they want, I'd hand them their paper back and tell them it isn't worth evaluating until they clearly define their thesis. Without a clearly defined thesis/claim, no argument in support of it can be constructed because the arguments are based in vagueness which is subject only to their confirmation bias.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 10:00 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2015 10:30 AM by Free.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 09:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Let me break this down and show you the problem I see.

"and also not know whether or not god is possible, ... while knowing that god's existence is either possible or not ..."

If you don't know whether or not god is possible, then how can you know that god's existence is possible?

That is an obvious logical contradiction, and that is precisely my contention here.

Let's look at 2 claims.

1. god is possible

2. god is not possible

I know that one of these 2 claims is true, but I don't know which one.

Same with universes.

1. other universes are possible

2. other universes are not possible

One is true, but I don't know which one. I'm not claiming that other universes are possible, I'm only claiming that one of the 2 options HAS to be true.

Listen very carefully.

In regards to the question of existence or non existence of God, you claim to know that one of those options is true, but you do not know which one.

What this means is that you are acknowledging the possibility that Option 1, God exists, could possibly be true.

Is that not correct?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 09:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 09:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Let's look at 2 claims.

1. god is possible

2. god is not possible

I know that one of these 2 claims is true, but I don't know which one.

Same with universes.

1. other universes are possible

2. other universes are not possible

One is true, but I don't know which one. I'm not claiming that other universes are possible, I'm only claiming that one of the 2 options HAS to be true.

And for the universe claims, all evidence right now points to proposition 2 as the only evidence we have is of this universe. Being able to conceive of universes with other parameters, doesn't mean they are plausible.

But (and here's the big but I'm how this differs from god claims), other universes are hypothesized to interact with our universe. Making them testable and detectable. So we can actually look for evidence to change our position.

God claims (when they specify themselves) can be tested too and none have ever panned out. So the claims are only logically rejected.

My familiarity with the "multiverse" concept is limited, but I don't think hypothetical "other universes" do interact with our universe. If they did, wouldn't they be part of our universe? The word "universe" means "everything there is," doesn't it? So anything we can observe or detect would necessarily be part of our universe. For the same reason, I'm not sure that the concept of multiple universes is coherent. If the universe is "everything there is," there can only be one of them.

Disclaimer: This is all highly speculative. I really don't know very much about the concept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: