Proving a negative?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2016, 11:59 AM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2016 01:02 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Proving a negative?
(30-07-2016 03:43 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 10:31 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Sure, and we will use the Evidence of Absence position to demonstrate it. [...]

I thank you for your copy pasta [sic], but I'm asking theist(s) to prove—using their own logistical and philosophical abilities—to prove empirically that their god, or any gods, exist in the real world. I'm not prepared to accept a Wiki definition posted by a third party. I'm asking you to prove it.

Firstly, I am not a theist.

Secondly, you asked me to prove it and that is what i am doing. It matters not what resources I use to make my point. Therefore, your attempt to dismiss my methods are hereby rejected.

Quote:
Quote:So using this, how do we prove that something does not exist? That question is simply answered the same way as the question of "How do we prove that something does exist?"

No. If I claim I can fly, I have to prove it to you by jumping off the roof. I don't (and can't) expect you to disprove it. Simple logic.

Irrelevant to the point I am about to make.

Quote:
Quote:The answer to both questions is "Observation."

Again, no. You can "observe" me jumping off the roof and flying, but it's impossible to "observe" me not jumping off the roof to support your purported claim that I cannot fly.

Under observation, we can see that you did not jump off the roof. Quite simple.

Quote:
Quote:We can observe when something exists and confirm its existence, and we can observe when something does not exist, and confirm it's non existence.

Okay. Can you please confirm that that Bertrand Russell's "flying teapot" does not exist? The floor is yours.

Just add it to God, Leprechauns, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Quote:
Quote:Observation in this respect encompasses more than just an "eyes-on" visual depiction of existence or non existence. It employs all the same senses we use to detect existence.

Granted. But... can you detect your god using audioception, gustaoception, olfacoception, or tactioception—four of the five human senses?

If it exists it can be detected. If it doesn't exist, its non existence is confirmed as per the evidence of absence.

Quote:
Quote:1. Is it possible that a man is lurking in your broom closet right now? Yes, because we know that men exist and we know they sometimes trespass on our property. So this is reasonably possible.
Agreed. But using the precept Ockham's Razor, it's highly improbable this is the case.

But still possible.

Quote:
Quote:2. Is it possible that a 15 foot high giraffe is currently in your broom closet? Yes, because we know giraffe's exist, but it is improbable that it is inside the broom closet because of its size.

This contradicts your point [1.] above.

No it does not. Giraffes are known to exist. In my example above, the dimensions of the broom closet have not be specified, so it is possible but extremely unlikely.

Quote:
Quote:3. It is possible that 500 ton Flying Spaghetti Monster who is 60 feet wide is in your 3 foot wide and 8 foot high broom closet right now? No, because there is no evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster ever existed, and this particular one could not fit in the broom closet.

Just as there is no evidence that any gods exist or have existed. Incidentally, our FSM is able—using its unlimited powers, just as your god does—to compress its body to enable it to fit into broom closets... and shoe boxes and thimbles too.

Umm ... have you figured out yet that you are "preaching to the choir?"

Quote:
Quote:It defies all known laws of physics, and it is completely unreasonable.
So you agree that your god, or gods, are not dissimilar to our FSM?

Is it dawning on you yet?

Quote:
Quote:Have we ever seen a Flying Spaghetti Monster? No, not one of us has ever seen a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is it possible that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?

Yes. Just as likely as your god existing.

No, both the FSM and God are eliminated as per the evidence of absence. Therefore, you can make the positive claim that God does not exist and actually prove it.

Quote:
Quote:In regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we have absolutely no evidence for it's proposed possibility, therefore the assertion that its existence is even possible is not in evidence because there is no evidence to demonstrate capability.

Precisely as per your god.

But my god exists. Last night I stuck my tongue into it until it orgasmed all over my face.

Big Grin

Quote:
Quote:The condition of non existence cannot be compared to a condition of existence, as the former is not an object, while the latter is in fact an object.

No. Magnetism exists or does not exist, and it's not an "object"—it's an electro-mechanical force. I'm guessing you're a bit confused with this.

No, magnetism can be detected, therefore it exists. Magnetism is also the product of an object that exists.

Quote:
Quote:Hence, the evidence of the absence of positive proof applies here as being positive proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist as it does not possess the conditions of existence, nor the conditions of possible existence, since we can demonstrate that the capability of it's proposed possible existence does not even exist itself, since there is no evidence to support said capability.

Sorry, but this word salad is ultimately meaningless. It needs a dressing of logic LOL.

Perhaps this supposed "word salad" could use a more intense moment of understanding it?

After all, you completely mistook me for a theist when all the signs were there that I am not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 01:48 PM
RE: Proving a negative?
Basically, a negative can only be proven within a finite boundary.

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 02:00 PM
RE: Proving a negative?
(30-07-2016 01:48 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  Basically, a negative can only be proven within a finite boundary.

Database designers and data modelers call it the difference between closed and open-world assumptions. OWL assumes an open-world.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 04:29 AM
RE: Proving a negative?
I tried to debunk "The Wind in the Willows" once, but in the end never could find any proof that Mr Toad isn't real.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: