On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2015, 12:06 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 06:00 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  My take on the story is that Sagan was trying to show that our failure to invalidate a claim, doesn't necessarily give us any evidence for the truth of the claim. And this works in both directions. If we fail to prove a claim true, this alone doesn't indicate that the claim is false, and it doesn't even tell us that the claim is probably, or likely, false. It only tells us that we failed to prove the claim.

In the case of the dragon, there is absence of evidence (not evidence of absence), and as Sagan points out, this doesn't tell us anything about whether the claim is true or false.

He is saying that the existence claim is incoherent and the non-existence claim unprovable.

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
23-08-2015, 12:08 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 08:21 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 07:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Exactly what is observable? How are you determining that what you are observing is a god?
It boils down to personal confirmation. These things that I observe are by definition not provable to others that do not have faith. I can explain it all day but you will only call it here it's a blast for me or nonsense. It can be things as seemingly as mundane as the formation of clouds heat lightning activity over it can be things as intermost as confirmation to self such as a physical feeling an overwhelming joy tears of joy and so forth and so on I can go into further detail but you I asked you first ask a particular question thank you

Those things are not evidence of any gods.

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
23-08-2015, 12:10 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 08:21 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It boils down to personal confirmation. These things that I observe are by definition not provable to others that do not have faith. I can explain it all day but you will only call it here it's a blast for me or nonsense. It can be things as seemingly as mundane as the formation of clouds heat lightning activity over it can be things as intermost as confirmation to self such as a physical feeling an overwhelming joy tears of joy and so forth and so on I can go into further detail but you I asked you first ask a particular question thank you

Those things are not evidence of any gods.
Of course. Yet to the witness, within particular circumstances, they are indeed irrefutable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 12:20 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 11:59 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  My aim is not for anyone's acceptance through my experience. It is to just open a doorway personally that will lead to your own experiences which in turn will eventually lead to your personal confirmation.

Opening a door to living a life based on wishful thinking, delusion, and fantasy? Thanks, but no thanks. I'd much rather face reality as it is than pretend it is how I might like it to be. Your personal experiences and confirmation are worthless and you have quite clearly demonstrated the ignorance that they lead to.

Keep it up. You are doing more to promote rational, evidence-based thinking than you realize. Very little beats such an excellent view into the dangers of religion.

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
23-08-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 11:54 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Unbeliever,

Technically, my first and strongest confirmation was without absolute Faith

Which isn't confirmation. It is assumption.

"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
23-08-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 12:10 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Of course. Yet to the witness, within particular circumstances, they are indeed irrefutable.

In that the witness can simply stick their fingers in their ears and say "nananana I can't hear you" very loudly when someone points out that they come pre-refuted, yes.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
23-08-2015, 12:54 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 12:35 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 12:10 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Of course. Yet to the witness, within particular circumstances, they are indeed irrefutable.

In that the witness can simply stick their fingers in their ears and say "nananana I can't hear you" very loudly when someone points out that they come pre-refuted, yes.
I'm sorry but that really makes little sense. If one's knowledge is based on one's experiences through existence then where does negating the experiences come into play? Do not adhere to some other persons opinions is not ignorance it is but the hard road the road that shows without denial the lessons of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 12:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If one's knowledge is based on one's experiences through existence then where does negating the experiences come into play?

When the experiences don't match up to what's actually there.

You can say that the sky being blue is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life hiding on Pluto, but that doesn't make it true.

"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
23-08-2015, 01:03 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(23-08-2015 12:57 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 12:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If one's knowledge is based on one's experiences through existence then where does negating the experiences come into play?

When the experiences don't match up to what's actually there.

You can say that the sky being blue is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life hiding on Pluto, but that doesn't make it true.

Nor- since there is absolutely no evidence- does it make it even possible.

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
23-08-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 08:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If Carl's main point was to show that an undetectable entity is no different from one that doesn't exist they why would have he started with "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"? Why did he not instead start with "An invisible incorporeal undetectable dragon lives in my garage". There was no need for the walk through steps of discovering evidence only to have it shot down with the definition of the dragon changing. The analogy would seem a complete waste of time.

He did that because he was an excellent writer. The example is bold and colorful, therefore memorable.
That would be a silly explaination.

A better explaination is that he wrote an analogy for the purpose of
"a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification."
https://www.google.com/search?q=analogy&...8&oe=utf-8

Rather than to show off his literary skills.

(22-08-2015 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  The rhetorical question was not to claim non-existence, it was to make the reader think about whether there is a difference between undetectable and non-existent.
The rhetorical question was aimed towards the claimant, because only the claimant can answer it. If the claimant answers the question and shows a physical difference between the thing existing vs it not existing then the claimant has possibly provided falsifiable criteria that can be tested. Any person making a claim should ask this question and should provide falsifiable criteria in their documented claim. This way they are showing an attempt to be skeptical even of their own claim.

(22-08-2015 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are dead wrong about bigfoot and Nessie - they do not fit the definition at all,
and it is dismaying that you persist with that when it is so obviously incorrect.
If you want to include them for some reason, you mneed to come up with your own definition and not pervert Sagan's.
This is because you are focused on the subject of the claim rather than on the claim itself. Claims for big foot or loch ness are untestable and unfalsifiable and completely fit what Carl is trying to express. The claimant would give us reasons why we haven't found evidence for big foot (your not looking in the right places, big foot is careful and he cleans up his foot prints, he leaves no tracks because he doesn't want to be found.

There is no value in the point you think Carl is trying to make. No value what-so-ever. Why would he limit his point to a deist's god? The deist doesn't even make a claim that their god is non interactive, they think their god interacted at the beginning when creating the universe. So this would then disqualify even that god as a "garage dragon" by your definition.
And as I've said before, if you told the deist that since their god is no longer interacting then we may as well behave as if the god doesn't exist, I'm sure they would agree with you. So what would be the point in pointing that out?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: