On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 01:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 01:14 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  That's a good point. Might be best to just wait for evidence....no need to rush to a conclusion prematurely.

It isn't a rush to conclusion to reject a claim when it presents no evidence for its position. Until such time as evidence of plausibility is presented, the claim isn't plausible. It isn't on me to prove or disprove the claim. The person making the claim (god exists, the dragon exists, big foot exists, etc) has to deliver or their claim is indistinguishable from fiction, and should be treated as such.

So, no evidence a god is plausible leads to the logical rejection of said claim based on a paucity of evidence that should be expected to exist.

Agreed, so long as we agree that rejection of a claim doesn't necessitate the acceptance of it's negation.

I could make the claim that other universes are impossible. You could reject this claim without believing that other universes are possible, agreed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 01:14 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 12:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How do you prove impossibility? What evidence could you give to demonstrate nonexistence of anything? Consider

That's a good point. Might be best to just wait for evidence....no need to rush to a conclusion prematurely.
If a claim includes falsifiable criteria then you can prove it to be false.

If a claim does not include falsifiable criteria then the claim itself should be discarded and the conclusion unresolved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 10:13 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

In multiverse theory, the other universes do very much interact with our own. That is why there is a multiverse theory; if there were no way to find evidence of these universes' existence, they would be garage dragons.

Now, whether or not multiverse theory is correct - and what alterations should be made to the term "universe" as a result - is another matter entirely, but it doesn't propose that undetectable entities exist.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
21-08-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 01:32 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 01:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It isn't a rush to conclusion to reject a claim when it presents no evidence for its position. Until such time as evidence of plausibility is presented, the claim isn't plausible. It isn't on me to prove or disprove the claim. The person making the claim (god exists, the dragon exists, big foot exists, etc) has to deliver or their claim is indistinguishable from fiction, and should be treated as such.

So, no evidence a god is plausible leads to the logical rejection of said claim based on a paucity of evidence that should be expected to exist.

Agreed, so long as we agree that rejection of a claim doesn't necessitate the acceptance of it's negation.

I could make the claim that other universes are impossible. You could reject this claim without believing that other universes are possible, agreed?

You are so far down a rabbit hole of language, I don't know what you are trying to say. I have tried to make my position as clear as possible (I don't use words like "impossible" if I can help it).

No evidence of a claim = not possible or plausible

The logical conclusion from this is that it does not and can not exist. If it can or does exist, it needs evidence to logically connect to it. That evidence might even be indirect (like mathematical evidence for the Higgs Particle).


In more common language, something that is not possible or plausible, would seem to be impossible. But I deal only in absolutes for things that exist since nonexistence can't be proven by definition and there can be no evidence of nonexistence.

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, 02:22 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 01:53 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 01:32 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Agreed, so long as we agree that rejection of a claim doesn't necessitate the acceptance of it's negation.

I could make the claim that other universes are impossible. You could reject this claim without believing that other universes are possible, agreed?

You are so far down a rabbit hole of language, I don't know what you are trying to say. I have tried to make my position as clear as possible (I don't use words like "impossible" if I can help it).

No evidence of a claim = not possible or plausible

The logical conclusion from this is that it does not and can not exist. If it can or does exist, it needs evidence to logically connect to it. That evidence might even be indirect (like mathematical evidence for the Higgs Particle).


In more common language, something that is not possible or plausible, would seem to be impossible. But I deal only in absolutes for things that exist since nonexistence can't be proven by definition and there can be no evidence of nonexistence.

What do you think Sagan is talking about when he says that it's arrogant to exclude the possibility? How about loch ness? Sagan is very clear that lack of evidence doesn't disprove the claim, but rather it leaves it unproved.

Please watch 14:33 to 16:53 to learn how skeptical scientists like Sagan approach claims.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 02:30 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 01:52 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 10:13 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

In multiverse theory, the other universes do very much interact with our own. That is why there is a multiverse theory; if there were no way to find evidence of these universes' existence, they would be garage dragons.

Now, whether or not multiverse theory is correct - and what alterations should be made to the term "universe" as a result - is another matter entirely, but it doesn't propose that undetectable entities exist.

I'll play free's advocate and ask you if you're claiming that other universes are possible? Ohmy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 02:22 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 01:53 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You are so far down a rabbit hole of language, I don't know what you are trying to say. I have tried to make my position as clear as possible (I don't use words like "impossible" if I can help it).

No evidence of a claim = not possible or plausible

The logical conclusion from this is that it does not and can not exist. If it can or does exist, it needs evidence to logically connect to it. That evidence might even be indirect (like mathematical evidence for the Higgs Particle).


In more common language, something that is not possible or plausible, would seem to be impossible. But I deal only in absolutes for things that exist since nonexistence can't be proven by definition and there can be no evidence of nonexistence.

What do you think Sagan is talking about when he says that it's arrogant to exclude the possibility? How about loch ness? Sagan is very clear that lack of evidence doesn't disprove the claim, but rather it leaves it unproved.

Please watch 14:33 to 16:53 to learn how skeptical scientists like Sagan approach claims.




Yeah, I am aware what Sagan is getting at, I prefer to extrapolate further.

No support for a position leaves it not only unproved, but lacking in expected evidence. So the claim of existence is rejected until the burden of proof is met.

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, 02:38 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 02:30 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 01:52 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In multiverse theory, the other universes do very much interact with our own. That is why there is a multiverse theory; if there were no way to find evidence of these universes' existence, they would be garage dragons.

Now, whether or not multiverse theory is correct - and what alterations should be made to the term "universe" as a result - is another matter entirely, but it doesn't propose that undetectable entities exist.

I'll play free's advocate and ask you if you're claiming that other universes are possible? Ohmy

They have not yet met their burden of proof and are not deemed possible given the paucity of evidence for their existence.

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, 02:41 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 02:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 02:30 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I'll play free's advocate and ask you if you're claiming that other universes are possible? Ohmy

They have not yet met their burden of proof and are not deemed possible given the paucity of evidence for their existence.

I agree, but I would go further in that they have also not been disproved. We don't know that other universes don't exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 02:22 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What do you think Sagan is talking about when he says that it's arrogant to exclude the possibility? How about loch ness? Sagan is very clear that lack of evidence doesn't disprove the claim, but rather it leaves it unproved.

Please watch 14:33 to 16:53 to learn how skeptical scientists like Sagan approach claims.




Yeah, I am aware what Sagan is getting at, I prefer to extrapolate further.

No support for a position leaves it not only unproved, but lacking in expected evidence. So the claim of existence is rejected until the burden of proof is met.

Sagan's point is that a claim that SHOULD have evidence to support its existence can be found and its existence demonstrated.

But any claim that provides no way of testing it, is indistinguishable from nonexistence. So, treat it as such.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: