On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Yes, there is. Which is why practical detection limits are not the question when it comes to garage dragons. Garage dragons are entities which are defined as undetectable.

(20-08-2015 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It also poses the questions as to why the person who believes in this undetectable thing, believes in it in the first place.

Because they are being rather silly.

"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
20-08-2015, 09:53 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Well, presumably, if you do make that claim, you can provide at least some evidence along the lines of, for example, being there when the child was conceived, or something similar.

The evidence required is trivial, but it is still required.

"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
20-08-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 09:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

What you're saying here, is that the position for anything that is imagined, is “non-existent”. The “non-existent” position is derived from perceiving the concept as imagined. If so, I agree with you. Where as concepts which you perceive as “plausible” are not perceived as “non-existent”. In fact we can likely suggest they are “unknown” if that plausibility has not been demonstrated further for us, such as the child’s biological father. It’s plausible that the man is the biological father, but without a paternity test, the actual status is “unknown”

Quote:“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

Yet I don’t go around declaring my lack of belief in Santa. I believe that he does not exist. That he’s imaginary, a story told by parents to their children in celebration of Christmas.

It would be entirely non-sense, and a bit dishonest, to refer to myself as merely lacking a belief in Santa.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 09:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 09:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

What you're saying here, is that the position for anything that is imagined, is “non-existent”. The “non-existent” position is derived from perceiving the concept as imagined. If so, I agree with you. Where as concepts which you perceive as “plausible” are not perceived as “non-existent”. In fact we can likely suggest they are “unknown” if that plausibility has not been demonstrated further for us, such as the child’s biological father. It’s plausible that the man is the biological father, but without a paternity test, the actual status is “unknown”

Quote:“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

Yet I don’t go around declaring my lack of belief in Santa. I believe that he does not exist. That he’s imaginary, a story told by parents to their children in celebration of Christmas.

It would be entirely non-sense, and a bit dishonest, to refer to myself as merely lacking a belief in Santa.

"What you're saying here, is that the position for anything that is imagined, is “non-existent”. The “non-existent” position is derived from perceiving the concept as imagined. If so, I agree with you. Where as concepts which you perceive as “plausible” are not perceived as “non-existent”. In fact we can likely suggest they are “unknown” if that plausibility has not been demonstrated further for us, such as the child’s biological father. It’s plausible that the man is the biological father, but without a paternity test, the actual status is “unknown”"

Without evidence, a claim can't be deemed plausible, let alone to be valid or representative of reality. Imagination is only internally true (the imaginer believes it, but that no more makes it real than fluffy pink unicorns or god).

"It’s plausible that the man is the biological father, but without a paternity test, the actual status is “unknown”""

A biological father must exist, that is not in question, because (barring the extremely rare occurrence of self-fertilization in females) a male must contribute sperm. The specifics of the "who" for the father are easy enough to demonstrate with actual evidence.

"It would be entirely non-sense, and a bit dishonest, to refer to myself as merely lacking a belief in Santa."
That is because people don't ascribe any actual importance to the belief or disbelief in Santa, but people do claim that a belief in god is important. The only dishonesty, is in trying to use special pleading to say a disbelief in Santa is okay based on the grounds of impossibility and lack of evidence, but not the disbelief in god(s). Drinking Beverage


Keep trying to shift that burden of proof. Maybe one day an atheist will fall for it on here...maybe.

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
20-08-2015, 10:15 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.

Sagan's example is about something that is not detectable in principle, not due to technological inadequacy. The only question Sagan poses is how does an undetectable thing differ from a non-existent one.

Quote: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.

No, no, and no. You are completely mis-reading Sagan.

Quote: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.

It is not about anyone's view of beliefs.

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, 10:29 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 10:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Without evidence, a claim can't be deemed plausible, let alone to be valid or representative of reality. Imagination is only internally true (the imaginer believes it, but that no more makes it real than fluffy pink unicorns or god).

If we see a man walking across the street with a child, it’s entirely plausible that he’s the biological father. Why? We don’t have any evidence to suggest that he is the actual biological father, it could be his cousin, or his uncle, or even his adopted parent.

Is the question of plausibility here, based on the evidence that all children have biological fathers?

Is it true that there can evidence of plausibility, yet no evidence that he is the biological father?

Quote:That is because people don't ascribe any actual importance to the belief or disbelief in Santa, but people do claim that a belief in god is important. The only dishonesty, is in trying to use special pleading to say a disbelief in Santa is okay based on the grounds of impossibility and lack of evidence, but not the disbelief in god(s).

I’m not sure why importance has anything to do with it. As if Santa beliefs acquired importance, that I would no longer believe he doesn’t exist, and just relegate myself to saying, “i lack a belief in his existence”.

The grounds for why I believe Santa doesn’t exist, is not the lack of evidence here, but rather because I find the case for him being imaginary, a story told by parents to children, to be a more accurate account, better supported by the evidence, than him being real.

Quote:Keep trying to shift that burden of proof. Maybe one day an atheist will fall for it on here...maybe.

If I wanted to convince you that God exists, then the burden of proof would fall on me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 10:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 10:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Without evidence, a claim can't be deemed plausible, let alone to be valid or representative of reality. Imagination is only internally true (the imaginer believes it, but that no more makes it real than fluffy pink unicorns or god).

If we see a man walking across the street with a child, it’s entirely plausible that he’s the biological father. Why? We don’t have any evidence to suggest that he is the actual biological father, it could be his cousin, or his uncle, or even his adopted parent.

Is the question of plausibility here, based on the evidence that all children have biological fathers?

Is it true that there can evidence of plausibility, yet no evidence that he is the biological father?

Quote:That is because people don't ascribe any actual importance to the belief or disbelief in Santa, but people do claim that a belief in god is important. The only dishonesty, is in trying to use special pleading to say a disbelief in Santa is okay based on the grounds of impossibility and lack of evidence, but not the disbelief in god(s).

I’m not sure why importance has anything to do with it. As if Santa beliefs acquired importance, that I would no longer believe he doesn’t exist, and just relegate myself to saying, “i lack a belief in his existence”.

The grounds for why I believe Santa doesn’t exist, is not the lack of evidence here, but rather because I find the case for him being imaginary, a story told by parents to children, to be a more accurate account, better supported by the evidence, than him being real.

"If we see a man walking across the street with a child, it’s entirely plausible that he’s the biological father. Why? We don’t have any evidence to suggest that he is the actual biological father, it could be his cousin, or his uncle, or even his adopted parent. "

An assumption based on a paucity of evidence doesn't demonstrate anything other than an inherent bias. Facepalm

"The grounds for why I believe Santa doesn’t exist, is not the lack of evidence here, but rather because I find the case for him being imaginary, a story told by parents to children, to be a more accurate account, better supported by the evidence, than him being real."

This is what makes you a hypocrite. Knowing Santa is fake because "of course" but god is totally real because...uh...ummm Consider

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
20-08-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 10:32 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "If we see a man walking across the street with a child, it’s entirely plausible that he’s the biological father. Why? We don’t have any evidence to suggest that he is the actual biological father, it could be his cousin, or his uncle, or even his adopted parent. "

An assumption based on a paucity of evidence doesn't demonstrate anything other than an inherent bias.

If I see a man walking across the street, and if my friend asked me if I believe the man was the child's father, I would respond that I don’t know, but it’s entirely plausible that he is. I see no inherent bias in this.

Quote:This is what makes you a hypocrite. Knowing Santa is fake because "of course" but god is totally real because...uh...ummm

That presuppose that they’re analogous. Is a belief that we were created analogous to a belief in Santa? Is a belief that life has a intrinsic meaning and purpose, analogous to a belief in Santa? Is a belief that people have moral obligations and duties, that there is such a thing as good and evil, analogous to a belief in Santa? Maybe you think some of them are, maybe you think they’re not. May be in your view these questions are entirely separate than the God questions, where as for me they are all one and the same.

(You’ve been doing well for the moment, without the ad hominem attacks, and I’m crossing my fingers here that this is not the beginning of a pattern in which you begin to go that route. )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 10:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That presuppose that they’re analogous. Is a belief that we were created analogous to a belief in Santa? Is a belief that life has a intrinsic meaning and purpose, analogous to a belief in Santa? Is a belief that people have moral obligations and duties, that there is such a thing as good and evil, analogous to a belief in Santa?

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
20-08-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:18 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If I can't prove that OJ Simpson committed murder, that's not proof that he's innocent.

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  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).

Wow, you don't get it. I'm not comparing OJ's existence to the existence of god. I'm comparing the unproven (unknown) guilt value of OJ, to the unproven existence value of god.

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

No, I'm saying lack of evidence to conclude guilt, is not evidence to conclude innocence. Likewise, lack of the evidence for the existence of god, doesn't conclude that god does not exist.

I think you're missing the point.

(20-08-2015 08:18 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

No, it's a perfect analogy. We know that the number of marbles is either even or odd, likewise, we know that god either exists or not. If I reject the claim that god exists, it doesn't necessitate that I accept the claim that god doesn't exist, for the same reason my rejection of even number of marbles doesn't necessitate acceptance of odd number of marbles.

(20-08-2015 08:18 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  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?

Couldn't we just look in my ass and see if we see any monkeys? Wouldn't I feel a billion monkeys crawling up my ass?

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

The claim that I ate an apple with my lunch on Monday is not falsifiable, but would you really say that it is not possible?

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  Just because one cannot prove that something isn't happening it in no way indicates any possibility that it is actually happening.

We are in 100% agreement on this

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

Well, I would argue that a hypothesis isn't really a claim. It's nothing more than a guess, or at most a guess with limited or suggestive (but not conclusive) evidence. Even so, people make claims without evidence all the time. There is no requirement of evidence to make a claim. I wouldn't consider a claim without evidence though...

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  All you have is baseless, worthless, assertion which is rightfully determined as being false.

I would say worthy of being dismissed, but I think it would be foolish to assume that everything that is not yet proven true, is automatically false. I can't prove that there is an even number of marbles in the unbreakable jar, but it would be silly to assume the claim is false.

(20-08-2015 08:18 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Just because I can't prove a claim to be true, does not mean the claim is false.

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  Using your logic, every single baseless claim of existence, no matter how absurd, could never be considered false.

No, my logic is to withhold belief until there is evidence to believe that the claim is either true or false.

Baseless claims should be dismissed, not automatically considered false.

(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

I'll show you why this doesn't work.

John killed Susan but didn't leave any evidence behind.

Eric claims that John killed Susan, but doesn't provide any evidence.

Since no evidence was found to support the claim that John killed Susan, the claim is false, John did not kill Susan.

Your logic leads you to assume that no evidence equals evidence of absence, but my logic leads to the conclusion that I don't know whether John killed Susan or not, and I will withhold belief until evidence is found that proves either guilt or innocence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: