On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 11:03 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 10:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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. )

"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."

Assumption without evidence. This has no bearing on the point. We know the kid has a father. This is pointless.

"That presuppose that they’re analogous."

They are.

"I’m not sure why importance has anything to do with it. "

"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. "

This is why you don't understand your hypocrisy. Idiots assigning importance to their imaginary friend (a god) doesn't make the belief in it any less absurd than a belief in Santa.

"(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. )"

You are an idiot. You don't even understand the stupidity in your examples or the hypocrisy in your belief or the obviousness of your attempt to shift the burden of proof.

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, 11:55 AM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 11:02 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(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.

No, you are indeed comparing the existence of one thing to the supposed existence of God. That is self evident, and indisputable regardless of what you say. You ARE making that comparison. Period.

Now you are also committing the fallacy of "Apples and Oranges:"

"A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared."

The unknown guilt value of OJ Simpson has nothing in common with the positive claim of the purported existence of God.

It is false because you are not only making a false analogy, you are also comparing an unknown which is based upon some evidence to an purported unknown which is based upon no evidence at all.

It falls under the category of False Analogy.

Quote:
(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.

And it's a false analogy.

In regards to Simpson, there is evidence to ponder. In regards to God, there is no evidence to ponder. And that is why it's a False Analogy/Apples & Oranges.

You cannot compare something that demonstrates evidence to something that does not demonstrate any evidence.

Quote:I think you're missing the point.

No, you just don't understand how to construct an analogy that isn't false.

(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.

Quote:
(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.

No, it's a false analogy. Compare:

Marbles:

1. The Marbles are a proven existence that can be verified and worked with.
2. You know that the answer is either odd or even.

God:

1. God is not a proven existence that can be verified and worked with.
2. You know absolutely nothing about God.

You also stated "likewise, we know that god either exists or not," which is an unsupported positive claim denoting the possible existence of God. To qualify this as being factual, you must first demonstrate with evidence that the existence of God is possible.

Do you not understand the philosophical Burden of Proof?

Quote:
(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?

Couldn't we just look into space for an approaching alien craft? Wouldn't we see an alien craft approaching?

If there is no evidence of monkey's crawling up your ass, how is that any different than no evidence of an approaching alien craft?

Quote:
(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?

Why would i disbelieve you? It is a common practice to eat apples, and this act of humanity can be easily demonstrated.

Have you ever seen anybody produce a single shred of evidence to support the existence of God?

Do you not understand why your analogies are all false?

Quote:
(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

If you can agree to that, then it is absolutely indistinguishable from the following:

Just because one cannot prove that something doesn't exist it in no way indicates any possibility that it actually does exist.

Don't you see it yet?

Quote:
(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.

Evidence is absolutely required to give any claim any credibility. If this were not true, anyone could be accused of any crime and be held in suspicion with no evidence.

If no evidence is supplied, the claim is false.

Quote:
(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.

No, if there is no evidence to support the claim, the claim is regarded as false. It is no different than when a false accusation is made against someone. If there is no evidence to support the accusation, then the accusation is false, and the accuser can be regarded as being untruthful.

(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.

Quote:
(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.

If that is your position, and you have no evidence to support the existence of God, then why do you still believe it's possible that God can exist when there is absolutely no evidence to support even the possibility?

Quote:Baseless claims should be dismissed, not automatically considered false.

They are dismissed because they are false.

Quote:
(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.

Let me show you what's wrong with this analogy:

Since you said, "John killed Susan," then we begin with positive affirmation, and can conclude that John killed Susan. We don't need anything else to prove it.

If you had said, "John may have killed Susan," then that leaves room for doubt, and makes the analogy valid. But since you proclaim John's guilt as being factual, we don't need Eric, nor a trial, or anything else.

Because, according to you, John is guilty of killing Susan.

This analogy cannot be compared to "Maybe God exists," which leaves room for doubt, because your analogy leaves no room for doubt as it proclaims a fact.

The analogy is false because it begins with a statement of fact, and it cannot be practically compared to a statement of doubt.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 11:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 10:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "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."

Assumption without evidence. This has no bearing on the point. We know the kid has a father. This is pointless.

It's entirely relevant to the point of what it means for something to be "plausible".

Quote:This is why you don't understand your hypocrisy. Idiots assigning importance to their imaginary friend (a god) doesn't make the belief in it any less absurd than a belief in Santa.

I know, the absurdity of believing in a life marked with significance.

(20-08-2015 11:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 10:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "(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. )"

You are an idiot. You don't even understand the stupidity in your examples or the hypocrisy in your belief or the obviousness of your attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Why do you always need to devolve into a decrepit asshole at every turn? I would like to know the answer to this? I want to know what religious person in your life has done you so wrong, that it left you these perpetual wounds? I try and feel empathy for you, thinking that perhaps you're just lashing out because of some tragic experiences in your own life. But perhaps I'm wrong, and you were just born insufferable.

Are we even able to start over again, you and I, without all this fury and vitriol? Or we stuck with this relationship we've built?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 12:24 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 12:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 11:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

It's entirely relevant to the point of what it means for something to be "plausible".

Quote:This is why you don't understand your hypocrisy. Idiots assigning importance to their imaginary friend (a god) doesn't make the belief in it any less absurd than a belief in Santa.

I know, the absurdity of believing in a life marked with significance.

Quote:"(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. )"

You are an idiot. You don't even understand the stupidity in your examples or the hypocrisy in your belief or the obviousness of your attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Why do you always need to devolve into a decrepit asshole at every turn? I would like to know the answer to this? I want to know what religious person in your life has done you so wrong, that it left you these perpetual wounds? I try and feel empathy for you, thinking that perhaps you're just lashing out because of some tragic experiences in your own life. But perhaps I'm wrong, and you were just born insufferable.

Are we even able to start over again, you and I, without all this fury and vitriol? Or we stuck with this relationship we've built?
[/quote]

"It's entirely relevant to the point of what it means for something to be "plausible". "
And father's exist and are necessary for human reproduction. Your example is stupid.

"I know, the absurdity of believing in a life marked with significance. "

There you go again, equating a belief in an imaginary being with being the only way to assign significance to one's life. Your ability to find significance in a fantasy, is as valid as anyone else who does (does that make Star Trek a reality? Or D&D? etc)

"Why do you always need to devolve into a decrepit asshole at every turn? I would like to know the answer to this? I want to know what religious person in your life has done you so wrong, that it left you these perpetual wounds? I try and feel empathy for you, thinking that perhaps you're just lashing out because of some tragic experiences in your own life. But perhaps I'm wrong, and you were just born insufferable.

Are we even able to start over again, you and I, without all this fury and vitriol? Or we stuck with this relationship we've built?"


Because you are a dishonest and disingenuous individual. Until you actually admit truth behind your reasons for being here and spouting off your nonsense (and stop hiding behind bullshit reasons), you remain squarely in the list of "dishonest fuckers that don't deserve any respect and who haven't earned any."

Because the last thing you are here to do, is learn (which is what you claim to be doing). 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, 12:41 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Also, you never showed me my rock's unintent.

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, 12:48 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 11:55 AM)Free Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 11:02 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

No, you are indeed comparing the existence of one thing to the supposed existence of God. That is self evident, and indisputable regardless of what you say. You ARE making that comparison. Period.

Now you are also committing the fallacy of "Apples and Oranges:"

"A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared."

The unknown guilt value of OJ Simpson has nothing in common with the positive claim of the purported existence of God.

It is false because you are not only making a false analogy, you are also comparing an unknown which is based upon some evidence to an purported unknown which is based upon no evidence at all.

It falls under the category of False Analogy.

Quote: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.

And it's a false analogy.

In regards to Simpson, there is evidence to ponder. In regards to God, there is no evidence to ponder. And that is why it's a False Analogy/Apples & Oranges.

You cannot compare something that demonstrates evidence to something that does not demonstrate any evidence.

Quote:I think you're missing the point.

No, you just don't understand how to construct an analogy that isn't false.

(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.

Quote: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.

No, it's a false analogy. Compare:

Marbles:

1. The Marbles are a proven existence that can be verified and worked with.
2. You know that the answer is either odd or even.

God:

1. God is not a proven existence that can be verified and worked with.
2. You know absolutely nothing about God.

You also stated "likewise, we know that god either exists or not," which is an unsupported positive claim denoting the possible existence of God. To qualify this as being factual, you must first demonstrate with evidence that the existence of God is possible.

Do you not understand the philosophical Burden of Proof?

Quote: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?

Couldn't we just look into space for an approaching alien craft? Wouldn't we see an alien craft approaching?

If there is no evidence of monkey's crawling up your ass, how is that any different than no evidence of an approaching alien craft?

Quote: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?

Why would i disbelieve you? It is a common practice to eat apples, and this act of humanity can be easily demonstrated.

Have you ever seen anybody produce a single shred of evidence to support the existence of God?

Do you not understand why your analogies are all false?

Quote:We are in 100% agreement on this

If you can agree to that, then it is absolutely indistinguishable from the following:

Just because one cannot prove that something doesn't exist it in no way indicates any possibility that it actually does exist.

Don't you see it yet?

Quote: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.

Evidence is absolutely required to give any claim any credibility. If this were not true, anyone could be accused of any crime and be held in suspicion with no evidence.

If no evidence is supplied, the claim is false.

Quote: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.

No, if there is no evidence to support the claim, the claim is regarded as false. It is no different than when a false accusation is made against someone. If there is no evidence to support the accusation, then the accusation is false, and the accuser can be regarded as being untruthful.

(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.

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

If that is your position, and you have no evidence to support the existence of God, then why do you still believe it's possible that God can exist when there is absolutely no evidence to support even the possibility?

Quote:Baseless claims should be dismissed, not automatically considered false.

They are dismissed because they are false.

Quote: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.

Let me show you what's wrong with this analogy:

Since you said, "John killed Susan," then we begin with positive affirmation, and can conclude that John killed Susan. We don't need anything else to prove it.

If you had said, "John may have killed Susan," then that leaves room for doubt, and makes the analogy valid. But since you proclaim John's guilt as being factual, we don't need Eric, nor a trial, or anything else.

Because, according to you, John is guilty of killing Susan.

This analogy cannot be compared to "Maybe God exists," which leaves room for doubt, because your analogy leaves no room for doubt as it proclaims a fact.

The analogy is false because it begins with a statement of fact, and it cannot be practically compared to a statement of doubt.

It seems to me that you purposely don't understand.

Do you think it would be fair to say that you have ventured beyond skepticism and into cynicism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 12:54 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2015 01:08 PM by Matt Finney.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Free,

What is your take on 14:33 - 16:53 on this video? Do you think that Sagan is saying that he believes that god and loch ness monster are possible? He doesn't seem to think they are impossible, so would you say that he must believe that they are possible?

(20-08-2015 08:08 AM)Free Wrote:  Here you demonstrate agnosticism, because 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.

I would argue that an agnostic can have no belief in regard to whether or not god is possible. Not believing it is impossible, is not the same as believing it is possible.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 01:25 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2015 01:30 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 12:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 12:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's entirely relevant to the point of what it means for something to be "plausible". "

And father's exist and are necessary for human reproduction. Your example is stupid.

The purpose of the example was to clarify what the meaning of plausibility is, in relationship to evidence.

It’s plausible that a man walking with a child is his biological father, even if the man’s actual biological status is unknown. You claim plausibility requires evidence. What’s the evidence for plausibility in this example? You repeat: “fathers exists.” “all children have biological parents”, is this the evidence for plausibility here? I would think it was a simple question, which does help to clarify the meaning of plausibility..

Quote:Because you are a dishonest and disingenuous individual. Until you actually admit truth behind your reasons for being here and spouting off your nonsense (and stop hiding behind bullshit reasons), you remain squarely in the list of "dishonest fuckers that don't deserve any respect and who haven't earned any.”

You and I seem to have a unique relationship, one that has no parallel with anyone else here, most of whom I get along with fine.

But I’m assuming the “dishonest fuckers that don't deserve any respect and who haven't earned any.”, are not just folks you run into online, or read about in the news, but one’s that correspond to actual people in your own life. I would like to know who these folks are, who left such a chip on your shoulder?

Are they the pastors and parishioners of the church you used to attend? Your parents? Who are these dishonest fuckers who hurt you? Because clearly somebody did. There must be some accounting for your maladaptive temperament, that makes it outside the norm even among your peers here.

Quote:Because the last thing you are here to do, is learn (which is what you claim to be doing).

There’s no single reason as to why I’m here, lol. I’m here, just like in any other group or forum in which I participate in, and have been doing so for over a decade, because I enjoy it for the most part, it servers my own curiosities. In fact the reason for why I communicate with any particular atheist such as yourself, and why I communicate with another atheists such as Rocketsurgeon, or Girlyman, or Matt, or anyone else is unlikely to be one and the same.

With you, it’s already given, that even when you might say something insightful, it’s not long before you devolve into an unpleasant person. So I guess the question would be why do I continue to communicate with you? Perhaps because I never had anyone dislike me to the extent that you do, lol. So sometimes I wonder if there’s some way in which we can reach some sense of tolerance, be slightly amiable, perhaps if I get creative or something?

So why do I continue to communicate with you? So I can find a way not to dislike you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 12:48 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 11:55 AM)Free Wrote:  No, you are indeed comparing the existence of one thing to the supposed existence of God. That is self evident, and indisputable regardless of what you say. You ARE making that comparison. Period.

Now you are also committing the fallacy of "Apples and Oranges:"

"A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared."

The unknown guilt value of OJ Simpson has nothing in common with the positive claim of the purported existence of God.

It is false because you are not only making a false analogy, you are also comparing an unknown which is based upon some evidence to an purported unknown which is based upon no evidence at all.

It falls under the category of False Analogy.


And it's a false analogy.

In regards to Simpson, there is evidence to ponder. In regards to God, there is no evidence to ponder. And that is why it's a False Analogy/Apples & Oranges.

You cannot compare something that demonstrates evidence to something that does not demonstrate any evidence.


No, you just don't understand how to construct an analogy that isn't false.



No, it's a false analogy. Compare:

Marbles:

1. The Marbles are a proven existence that can be verified and worked with.
2. You know that the answer is either odd or even.

God:

1. God is not a proven existence that can be verified and worked with.
2. You know absolutely nothing about God.

You also stated "likewise, we know that god either exists or not," which is an unsupported positive claim denoting the possible existence of God. To qualify this as being factual, you must first demonstrate with evidence that the existence of God is possible.

Do you not understand the philosophical Burden of Proof?


Couldn't we just look into space for an approaching alien craft? Wouldn't we see an alien craft approaching?

If there is no evidence of monkey's crawling up your ass, how is that any different than no evidence of an approaching alien craft?


Why would i disbelieve you? It is a common practice to eat apples, and this act of humanity can be easily demonstrated.

Have you ever seen anybody produce a single shred of evidence to support the existence of God?

Do you not understand why your analogies are all false?


If you can agree to that, then it is absolutely indistinguishable from the following:

Just because one cannot prove that something doesn't exist it in no way indicates any possibility that it actually does exist.

Don't you see it yet?


Evidence is absolutely required to give any claim any credibility. If this were not true, anyone could be accused of any crime and be held in suspicion with no evidence.

If no evidence is supplied, the claim is false.


No, if there is no evidence to support the claim, the claim is regarded as false. It is no different than when a false accusation is made against someone. If there is no evidence to support the accusation, then the accusation is false, and the accuser can be regarded as being untruthful.



If that is your position, and you have no evidence to support the existence of God, then why do you still believe it's possible that God can exist when there is absolutely no evidence to support even the possibility?


They are dismissed because they are false.


Let me show you what's wrong with this analogy:

Since you said, "John killed Susan," then we begin with positive affirmation, and can conclude that John killed Susan. We don't need anything else to prove it.

If you had said, "John may have killed Susan," then that leaves room for doubt, and makes the analogy valid. But since you proclaim John's guilt as being factual, we don't need Eric, nor a trial, or anything else.

Because, according to you, John is guilty of killing Susan.

This analogy cannot be compared to "Maybe God exists," which leaves room for doubt, because your analogy leaves no room for doubt as it proclaims a fact.

The analogy is false because it begins with a statement of fact, and it cannot be practically compared to a statement of doubt.

It seems to me that you purposely don't understand.

Do you think it would be fair to say that you have ventured beyond skepticism and into cynicism?

Perhaps you need to understand something about rationalization.

Whenever anyone says that something is "possible" it must be demonstrated with evidence as actually being possible. All too often ordinary everyday people use the word "possible" as in "anything's possible" in a loose manner.

The truth of the matter is that not anything is possible. When we look at the very definition of the word, we see the following:

pos·si·ble
ˈpäsəb(ə)l/
adjective
1.
able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.

For something to be possible, then something must exist to make it a possibility. All too often we see theists on here who have no idea how far reaching the word "possible" actually is, and to what extent it entails.

Now, you say that the existence of God is possible. Okay, but now you need to show me why the existence of God is possible.

That is the entire point of my argument. I am not trying to decieve you, but rather only lead you to understand why me and other atheists/rationalists/secularists rationalize the existence or non existence of all things, and not just God.

So think about your answer to my question and get back to me.

Why is the existence of God a possibility?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 12:19 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 12:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  If you actually bother to read Carl's statement the claim isn't "There is an undetectable dragon in my garage"

Carl Sagan Wrote:"...And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?"

Bolding mine.

You might at least try to pretend that you read the passage in question.

And you have quote mined my post.

My proper quote is
(20-08-2015 12:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  If you actually bother to read Carl's statement the claim isn't "There is an undetectable dragon in my garage"

The claim is "There is a dragon in my garage".
The difference is fundamental to understanding the point Carl was getting across.


And to pull it straight from Carl's statement
Quote:"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself.

This is the claim. Nothing about it being invisible or undetectable!

During the progress of the analogy the fire-breathing dragon becomes undetectable, which is because in your search for evidence he keeps coming back with excuses as to why you aren't finding the evidence you are assuming should be there. He changes the fire-breathing dragon into an "invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire ".

Carl is clearly defining the process of changing definitions and shifting goal posts. All enabled by ill defined (incomplete) claim which you are allowing the claimant to add more to as you go about trying to disprove it.
This is what the garage dragon is all about. It is an analogy to show how a poorly defined claim can evolve to become unfalsifiable, even though you thought (at first glance) that it should be falsifiable. There doesn't actually have to be a fire breathing dragon in the claim. There doesn't actually have to be something invisible, incorporeal, floating in the claim. The claim can easily be about a physical thing such as Big foot or loch ness. You are taking the analogy way too far and in the process completely missing the point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: