On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 08:18 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:08 AM)Free Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 09:39 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I disagree.

Let me show you your contradictions.

Quote:I don't believe that it's possible that god exists.

Then you are an atheist, because atheists have no beliefs in respect to the existence or possible existence of God.

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

By necessity, if you don't believe it's impossible, then by default you claim a belief in the possibility that God exists whether you directly state it with words or not.

Quote: I don't have a belief, because I don't have enough evidence to form a belief I would want to hold.

Your very words above demonstrate a contradiction in your thought processes.

Quote: Sure, I can have a guess, and I would guess no god.

A guess demonstrates a level of uncertainty, and is not a statement of total ignorance.

Quote: I can also guess which team is going to win a football game, but I don't hold a belief that one team is going to win. No need to rush to a conclusion....not in that big of a hurry.

Even here, making a guess on one team over another holds a degree of belief, otherwise you could not make that choice. You do not make choices with no catalyst for the decision.

The simple way to understand this is by asking yourself a question:

"Why do I chose one team over another?"

Your contradictions here are very apparent.

You just don't understand logic at all.

If I can't prove that OJ Simpson committed murder, that's not proof that he's innocent.

If I can't prove that there's an even number of marbles inside an unbreakable jar, it doesn't mean that the number of marbles is odd.

If I can't prove that there's an alien spacecraft on it's way towards earth, it doesn't mean that there is not an alien spacecraft on it's way towards earth.

Just because I can't prove a claim to be true, does not mean the claim is false.

Skeptic = no belief without proof (no faith)

cynic = belief that claim is false until proven true

You're leaving skepticism for cynicism.

Rejection of a claim does not equal acceptance of its negation. This is logic 101.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Matt Finney's post
20-08-2015, 08:45 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it doesn't. He is saying there is no substantve difference between something that is not detectable and something non-existent.

There is a difference, between "not detectable", in which we're speaking of the inadequacy of equipment, currently, or perhaps even in the future, or even in regards to the human capacities to detect. It also poses the questions as to why the person who believes in this undetectable thing, believes in it in the first place.

Where as "non-existent" would imply than if it were able to be detected, we would find nothing at all. That it doesn't exist even in an invisible sense. A point I would implying when suggesting the person who believe it was delusional.

Claiming that "non-existent" would entail both my view that the person's beliefs are false, as well as the person who merely believes the claim is indeterminable, allows for equivocation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it doesn't. He is saying there is no substantve difference between something that is not detectable and something non-existent.

There is a difference, between "not detectable", in which we're speaking of the inadequacy of equipment, currently, or perhaps even in the future, or even in regards to the human capacities to detect. It also poses the questions as to why the person who believes in this undetectable thing, believes in it in the first place.

Where as "non-existent" would imply than if it were able to be detected, we would find nothing at all. That it doesn't exist even in an invisible sense. A point I would implying when suggesting the person who believe it was delusional.

Claiming that "non-existent" would entail both my view that the person's beliefs are false, as well as the person who believes his claims indeterminable, allows for equivocation.

Until the person making the claim of existence can show it, then whatever "it" is, is considered non-existeient.

The Higgs-Boson had indirect evidence (actual mathematical evidence) for its existence before detection. And even it wasn't considered by default to exist until detected.

So, until a theist actually supports the assertion their god exists, it doesn't. Drinking Beverage

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
20-08-2015, 08:47 AM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2015 09:05 AM by Free.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:18 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:08 AM)Free Wrote:  Let me show you your contradictions.


Then you are an atheist, because atheists have no beliefs in respect to the existence or possible existence of God.


By necessity, if you don't believe it's impossible, then by default you claim a belief in the possibility that God exists whether you directly state it with words or not.


Your very words above demonstrate a contradiction in your thought processes.


A guess demonstrates a level of uncertainty, and is not a statement of total ignorance.


Even here, making a guess on one team over another holds a degree of belief, otherwise you could not make that choice. You do not make choices with no catalyst for the decision.

The simple way to understand this is by asking yourself a question:

"Why do I chose one team over another?"

Your contradictions here are very apparent.

You just don't understand logic at all.

Really? Let me show you how logic doesn't work.

Quote:If I can't prove that OJ Simpson committed murder, that's not proof that he's innocent.

False logic, known as a False Analogy/False Comparison:

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

Why is your analogy false? A number of ways:

1. You are comparing the known and proven existence of OJ Simpson to the unproven supposed existence of God. Hence, Object A (OJ Simpson) is not even remotely similar to Object B (God).

2. You are comparing the property of P of OJ Simpson stating due the evidence against him, the "verdict still does not make him innocent" to the property P of God in which has no evidence whatsoever.


That's one false application of logic that is glaringly obvious. There are more here:

Quote:If I can't prove that there's an even number of marbles inside an unbreakable jar, it doesn't mean that the number of marbles is odd.

Another false analogy, comparing a proven existence (Marbles) to an unproven assertion of existence, (God.) Hence, A & B are not similar, and do not share property P.

Should we keep going?

Quote:If I can't prove that there's an alien spacecraft on it's way towards earth, it doesn't mean that there is not an alien spacecraft on it's way towards earth.

Are you saying that if I cannot prove that 1 Billion monkeys are crawling up your ass right now, it doesn't mean 1 billion monkeys are not crawling up your ass right now?

Using your faulty logic, anyone can make a baseless claim and it could never be disputed. You don't seem to understand that for a claim to be possible, it must be falsifiable.

Just because one cannot prove that something isn't happening it in no way indicates any possibility that it is actually happening. For you to make a claim of possibility, evidence must be demonstrated for that possibility. Only then can you have a hypothesis. If you cannot qualify the hypothesis with evidence, you do not have a claim at all.

All you have is baseless, worthless, assertion which is rightfully determined as being false.

Quote:Just because I can't prove a claim to be true, does not mean the claim is false.

Using your logic, every single baseless claim of existence, no matter how absurd, could never be considered false.

You need to learn and understand what FALSIFICATION is before you can ever claim to know anything about logic.

If you do not have observable evidence to support the claim, then the claim is false. And even if you do provide evidence, if that evidence is falsified, then the claim is false.

Period.

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
20-08-2015, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2015 09:24 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Until the person making the claim of existence can show it, then whatever "it" is, is considered non-existeient.

Which makes as much sense as claiming that unless a person can show that a child is their biological offspring, then they must be somebody else's.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
20-08-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Until the person making the claim of existence can show it, then whatever "it" is, is considered non-existeient.

Which makes as much sense as claiming that unless a person can show that a child is their biological offspring, than they must be somebody else's.

No, because the kid exists as do the parents (the only way a child can be conceived).

If the paternity of the child is in question, there are tests to determine paternity and as long as the question persists, the biological father would be unknown.

It is more akin to a kid coming home and talking about their new best friend, Craig. Craig can do all kinds of amazing things, like turn water into juice. Craig probably doesn't exist, and even if Craig does, the attributes assigned to him are false. It is very easy to find evidence of Craig. Where is the evidence of god?

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
20-08-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Also, this question "Where is the evidence of god?" was rhetorical. I don't care about your special pleading, I am just pointing out the idiocy in your posts and assumptions. Drinking Beverage

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
20-08-2015, 09:38 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No, because the kid exists as do the parents (the only way a child can be conceived).

If the paternity of the child is in question, there are tests to determine paternity and as long as the question persists, the biological father would be unknown.

It is more akin to a kid coming home and talking about their new best friend, Craig. Craig can do all kinds of amazing things, like turn water into juice. Craig probably doesn't exist, and even if Craig does, the attributes assigned to him are false. It is very easy to find evidence of Craig. Where is the evidence of god?


It's understandable why without a paternity test, a person could say the biological father is unknown, rather than claiming the person considered the biological father is not the biological father.

We don't assume that the only substances that exist in the universe are that which we can detect currently, we can assume there is perhaps a variety of substances that we currently have not been able to detect, whose existence is "unknown", but not necessarily "non-existent".

The reason you might conclude the Craig does not exist, is not the fact that there's no evidence for him currently, or that he's undetectable, but because you have reasons to conclude that he's an imaginary friend. It follows from conceiving him as a imaginary friend, that he doesn't exist.

You can say the same of God of course, that God's non-existence, is not assumed on the basis of his undetectable quality ( his transcendent nature), rather because of the belief in his existence, is based on delusion, imaginary, like Santa Claus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 09:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No, because the kid exists as do the parents (the only way a child can be conceived).

If the paternity of the child is in question, there are tests to determine paternity and as long as the question persists, the biological father would be unknown.

It is more akin to a kid coming home and talking about their new best friend, Craig. Craig can do all kinds of amazing things, like turn water into juice. Craig probably doesn't exist, and even if Craig does, the attributes assigned to him are false. It is very easy to find evidence of Craig. Where is the evidence of god?


It's understandable why without a paternity test, a person could say the biological father is unknown, rather than claiming the person considered the biological father is not the biological father.

We don't assume that the only substances that exist in the universe are that which we can detect currently, we can assume there is perhaps a variety of substances that we currently have not been able to detect, who existence is "unknown", but not necessarily "non-existent".

The reason you might conclude the Craig does not exist, is not the fact that there's no evidence for him currently, or that he's undetectable, but because you have reasons to conclude that he's an imaginary friend.

You can say the same of God of course, that God, non-existence, is not assumed not on the basis of his undetectable quality ( his transcendent nature), rather because of the belief in his existence, is based on delusion, imaginary, like a Santa Claus.

"It's understandable why without a paternity test, a person could say the biological father is unknown..."
But the evidence of the existence of the father is known because the kid is alive. Facepalm Your example is moronic.

"We don't assume that the only substances that exist in the universe are that which we can detect currently, we can assume there is perhaps a variety of substances that we currently have not been able to detect, who existence is "unknown", but not necessarily "non-existent"."
No, either we have evidence (direct or in-direct) for the existence of these substances and they are therefore likely/plausible to exist, or they are deemed non-existient until such time as actual evidence demonstrates plausibility. The default position is NOT plausible for all imagined concepts.

"You can say the same of God of course, that God, non-existence, is not assumed not on the basis of his undetectable quality ( his transcendent nature), rather because of the belief in his existence, is based on delusion, imaginary, like a Santa Claus."

Your god is as real as Santa. "Transcendent nature" = bullshit woooo wording that means imaginary Laugh out load

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
20-08-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That seems to suggests that things that are not visible do not exist.

No, it doesn't. It explicitly states that things which are not detectable do not exist.

Because they don't.

(20-08-2015 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Which could be true, but would follow from a belief that all that exists is visible and measurable in some form or the other.

Visible, no. Measurable, yes.

If it isn't measurable in any way, by any means, ever, then there is no meaningful way to say that it exists. It is functionally imaginary.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: