WillBlake: Those are both positive claims. Regardless
Those are both positive claims.
Uhm, regardless? That's the error in your argument, and you come back with "regardless"?
WillBlake: the non-existence of 'god' can be proven...depending on what you mean by 'god'.
Feel free to prove that God doesn't exist then.
WillBlake:I imagine you are well aware of the fact that if 'god' is claimed to be omnipotent and benevolent, then it logically follows that 'god' doesn't exist.
That's argument by assertion. You haven't demonstrated the contradiction that logically falsifies God.
WillBlake:So, guess what, a negative has been proven.
You still do not understand what a negative proof is, even after I explained that belief in God, and disbelief in God are both positive claims.
The negative proof, is saying, "Because it is not proven that God exists, God cannot exist." That's a logical error. The absence of proof, is not proof of absence. In other words, because you have never seen a Yeti or a Lochness monster or aliens from Mars, doesn't mean they don't exist.
WillBlake:That's great. And you are skeptical of everything? Are you skeptical of your own skepticism too? And is your skepticism based on...what...faith?
Bingo.
WillBlake:By the way, you did agree that so called australian economics is superstition, no?
Austrian economics, not Australian economics. lol
Superstition? I think that Austrian economics provides some logical proofs which refute many of the things people believe to be logical and scientific, which are in fact, not. That said, a preference for Austrian economics is only that. A preference. Someone who prefers Keynesianism or Mercantilism or Monetarism has different preferences. However, I think the logical premises of Austrian economics undermines the validity of those economic systems as science. They can still be religions though.
Your whole post at Jul 4 2010 3:15 PM is nonsense.
The fraudsters who run the different revealed relgions make all sorts of "positive claims" (to use your jargon) and they NEVER prove those claims. They lie for personal gain - they are fraudsters.
When you feel like dealing with those FACTS, let me know. So far all you've done is wave your hands and go off in different tangents.
By the way, it seems you don't even understand the logical argument showing that a benevolent and omnipotent god CAN'T exist? Or are you playing dumb?
Your skepticism is based on faith? Well, thanks for conceding that you don't have a leg to stand on.
WillBlake:Your whole post at Jul 4 2010 3:15 PM is nonsense.
That is argument by assertion. You would have to prove the opposite of what I wrote in order to make that claim stick.
WillBlake:The fraudsters who run the different revealed relgions make all sorts of "positive claims" (to use your jargon) and they NEVER prove those claims. They lie for personal gain - they are fraudsters.
If they knowingly misrepresent something, then it is fraud. If they believe in their religion, it is not. Again, fraud has a very simple definition. It is not applicable to every act of intellectual error only those with malintent.
WillBlake:When you feel like dealing with those FACTS, let me know. So far all you've done is wave your hands and go off in different tangents.
You haven't proven any facts. You have only made positive claims. When I ask you to support them, you refuse to. By your own standard, you are engaging in fraud in this discussion.
WillBlake:By the way, it seems you don't even understand the logical argument showing that a benevolent and omnipotent god CAN'T exist? Or are you playing dumb?
I'm not playing dumb, I am asking you to prove it if there is a logical argument. Most logical arguments only require a sentence or two to demonstrate the contradiction. You have not done that. You are asking me to take your proof on faith. And I am suggesting that you don't have a proof but only faith.
One fool believing another fool is silly, not science.
This post is better than sky cake. In all seriousness, I think Germanicus has hit the nail on the head. To anyone who believes religion is responsible for war or the use of force--go and study late Republican Roman history. The clash of egos between Marius and Sulla, Caesar and Pompeius, and Octavian and Antonius is a perfect example of conflicts originating from "human desire to acquire status." Religion was used as a tool by all sides, but ultimately the civil wars occurred because the each of these great men desired to be the first man in Rome, whatever the cost.
Quite so. As a classicist it reminds of Caesar's famous comment, as recounted in Plutarch that he would "rather be the first man in a [barbarian] village than the second man in Rome".
"If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits."- Jared Taylor
WillBlake:Your skepticism is based on faith? Well, thanks for conceding that you don't have a leg to stand on.
Did you understand the earlier conversation about irrefutable truth? I don't have perfect knowledge hence why I am a skeptic. And a skeptic acting without perfect knowledge, is acting on faith.
Let me recap :
Revealed relgions are unproven frauds. For instance, the jews have never proven that the jewish god created the universe. The catholics never proved that jesus is the son of god whatever that's supposed to mean. Et cetera.
Now, try to understand this : if A tells a lie to B and B believes the lie, the fact that A is lying remains. Also, when A lies for profit, it's called fraud.
Hell, profit doesn't even need to exist . Fraud : any deception, trickery, or humbug: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud
Still, organized religions belong to this category :
fraud : deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
deceit perpetrated for profit : fraud.
I also illustrated how a negative can be proven - the non existence of a benevolent and omnipotent god is proven by showing that the concept is self-refuting and can't exist.
You can of course continue your jihad against common sense...I guess it's...funny?
WillBlake:I also illustrated how a negative can be proven - the non existence of a benevolent and omnipotent god is proven by showing that the concept is self-refuting and can't exist.
Where did you illustrate this? Show us your proof.
WillBlake:You can of course continue your jihad against common sense...I guess it's...funny?
To be honest, when you claimed to prove a negative, I did laugh out loud.
That said, it's not a negative. Your claim is positive. And still unproven.
You don't know what a reductio-ad-absurdum is, do you? It's way to prove that certain 'things' can't exist. For instance a benevolent and omnipotent god can't exist - the concept is self-contradictory. Dunno, maybe you need to google "problem of evil" or something.
But again, that's simply diversion. The existence of 'god' is not the issue - not to mention that you didn't define 'god' - so we don't even know wha you mean by "prove that god does/doesn't exist"
What we are sadly lacking are PROOFS coming from the theocrats you support. These theocrats make claims that they never prove - And they abuse people by lying to them - for personal profit.
Also, skepticism is a sort of fringe position, and it's of course self-refuting (something you don't seem to grasp). The thing is, the fraudsters who run the different organized religions are definitely NOT skeptics. So, trying to help them using skepticism doesn't really work - and that's forgetting for a second that skepticism is self-refuting.
WillBlake:You don't know what a reductio-ad-absurdum is, do you? It's way to prove that certain 'things' can't exist. For instance a benevolent and omnipotent god can't exist - the concept is self-contradictory. Dunno, maybe you need to google "problem of evil" or something.
That's not a reductio.
WillBlake:But again, that's simply diversion.
I can agree with that. Logic is only a diversion to secular atheists.
WillBlake:What we are sadly lacking are PROOFS coming from the theocrats you support. These theocrats make claims that they never prove - And they abuse people by lying to them - for personal profit.
I don't support any theocrats. That is a strawman fallacy.
Theocrats aren't compelled morally to prove their claims, anymore than anyone is compelled to prove their beliefs or disbeliefs. If they lie to people for money, then the person paying them money has a claim for fraud, if they feel it is fraud. Not because you say so. There are people who like to be lied to, just like there are people who liked to be whipped and chained and sexually abused in dungeons. That is their business.
WillBlake:Also, skepticism is a sort of fringe position
Argumentatum ad populum?
WillBlake:Also, skepticism is a sort of fringe position, and it's of course self-refuting (something you don't seem to grasp).
Skepticism is the foundation for scientific discovery. Without skepticism, there is intellectual stagnation. The irony is, you argue against people who believe in nonsense, but you claim skepticism (the lack of belief in nonsense) is self-refuting. After several hundred words back and forth, I'm not sure you even know what you are talking about anymore.
WillBlake:The thing is, the fraudsters who run the different organized religions are definitely NOT skeptics.
So then they are NOT self-refuting (according to you)? I thought your claim was that organized religion was self-refuting.
WillBlake:So, trying to help them using skepticism doesn't really work - and that's forgetting for a second that skepticism is self-refuting.
I'm not interested in helping anyone. I am only interested in intellectual honesty. Claims about the validity or invalidity of religion must be proven, they cannot be asserted, and the absence of proof is not proof itself. To deny that is to deny logic. Which is fine. There are people who behave without logic, but if you want to argue coherently (without contradiction) then it seems to me that logic is a must.
Libertystudent, is everyone accused of a crime guilty? Let's say there is no evidence. Still convinced the jury that wants to imprison him has a case?
It would seem that there are two types of people wrong in the jury of an innocent person. Those who refuse to say anything: skeptic. And those who say what is false either through maliciousness or through some technical 'can't totally prove this' argument: sophists or theologians.
But, even worse, I would say religion is less like a trial of a human said to have committed a crime. And more like a block being accused of fitting in a smaller round peg. Or a giant crying Jesus face trying to get through the atmosphere.
John, I really didn't understand your post. I think I disagree with skeptic = silence.
John Ess:Those who refuse to say anything: skeptic
I think the Detroit Red Wings are the best franchise in Hockey, Montreal Canadiens fans will differ. It's nothing to start an intellectual jihad over.
Detroit Red Wings? Thats just pure blasphemy. Forget intellectual jihads, I'm going to burn your damn house down.
John Ess:And those who say what is false either through maliciousness or through some technical 'can't totally prove this' argument: sophists or theologians.
I'm not sure if this "technical 'can't totally prove this' argument" refers to my position. Did it?
I thought your claim was that organized religion was self-refuting.
Claims about the validity or invalidity of religion must be proven
Anyways, I'm still waiting for you to tell me which one of the various organized religions out there is the true and only organized religion. Or you'd rather admit now that they are all frauds, run by fraudsters?
Also, for a militant skeptic you sure make lots of bold & strong assertions...Maybe it's a double standard of sorts? Do you have faith in your idiosyncratic version of 'logic' too? Or is logic, just like science, "riddled with superstition"?
This ongoing discussion reminds me of the atheist/agnostic debate between Stefan Molyneux and Johnson on Free Talk Live at Porcfest:
http://freetalklive.com/content/podcast_2010_06_25
Johnson was way outmatched but it was entertaining nonetheless.
I would be interested to here liberty student's take on Molyneux's arguments for certainty in positively denying the existence of god.
You said negatives cannot be proven. And that the same time say that in order to believe something isn't true, a negative, you must provide proof. Which makes an impossible situation. At the same time, with this impossibility, it is the case that no evidence would be sufficient to prove someone has not committed a crime. Since this would be 'proving a negative' in the sense you use.
Skepticism is really the in between point of not knowing and knowing. Once something can be said it presupposes the truth of what is said. And thus becomes a knowing and not a skepticism. All language has such presuppositions built into it.
skepticism as 'a position' in that way is self-refuting. In the same way nihilism is. It cannot be a position. skepticism as a concept is not self-refuting, to my knowledge. But as 'a position' to bring into discourse is. Thus it is a necessary condition of skepticism to remain silent. Or only assert silence.
WillBlake:That's not a reductio. Yes it is. The concept of a benevolent and omnipotent god is self-contradictory, absurd and...false.
You're making assertions again. You still haven't offered a proof. And I don't see how that qualifies as a reductio.
WillBlake:I thought your claim was that organized religion was self-refuting. Are you kidding? Where did I make that claim please?
My mistake, you claimed that belief in God and skepticism of God were both self-refuting, is that corrrect?
WillBlake:Claims about the validity or invalidity of religion must be proven You got that wrong. The claims made by religious fraudsters must be substantiated, if not, they are false by default.
Now that is you applying a negative proof. Which is a logical fallacy.
WillBlake:Anyways, I'm still waiting for you to tell me which one of the various organized religions out there is the true and only organized religion. Or you'd rather admit now that they are all frauds, run by fraudsters?
I don't know what any of them are true. I can't prove they are or are not. Can you?
WillBlake:Also, for a militant skeptic you sure make lots of bold & strong assertions...Maybe it's a double standard of sorts? Do you have faith in your idiosyncratic version of 'logic' too? Or is logic, just like science, "riddled with superstition"?
I'm simply applying logic in order to think without contradiction. I'm trying to utilize reason to draw conclusions that are not based on false premises.
If you could point out my assertions (second time you have made this claim), I would be happy to back them up or retract them.
Sorry to butt in here, guys.
This is not directly in line with the discussion at the moment, but to an atheist, is there a difference, a distinction, between "faith" and "religion".
It seems like the invective against organized religion involves a religion's ability to use the power of the state as a means to accomplish that religion's own ends. It's my understanding that it is the use of coercive power that atheists / atheist libertarians object to. Is "faith" just as objectionable? Is "faith" also "fraudulent" in the way Willblake is using the term?
Willblake, I'll ask you directly: Do you think "faith" is fraudulent in the same manner that you discuss religion as being fraudulent?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
John Ess:You said negatives cannot be proven.
To clarify, negative proof is not proof.
John Ess:And that the same time say that in order to believe something isn't true, a negative, you must provide proof.
No. I explained this up thread. Negative proof, is when you use the absence of proof, to disprove something. For example, Alex Jones can't prove that aliens from the planet poptart run the US government. Therefore it is untrue. Or, no one has ever seen a black swan, therefore black swans do not exist. Or, Christians can't prove the existence of God, therefore God does not exist.
Those are negative proofs. They are logical fallacies.
If you want to prove something doesn't exist, you need to assert a positive which eliminates other contradictory positives. How you prove God doesn't exist (in this discussion) is up to whoever makes that claim. But they can't use a lack of evidence as proof. That is a logical fallacy. It is an error in reasoning.
John Ess: At the same time, with this impossibility, it is the case that no evidence would be sufficient to prove someone has not committed a crime.
The only way to prove someone has committed a crime is to show positive proof he committed it. That is why the burden of proof is always on the accuser (something Will Blake is struggling to comprehend).
John Ess:Skepticism is really the in between point of not knowing and knowing. Once something can be said it presupposes the truth of what is said. And thus becomes a knowing and not a skepticism. All language has such presuppositions built into it. skepticism as 'a position' in that way is self-refuting. In the same way nihilism is. It cannot be a position. skepticism as a concept is not self-refuting, to my knowledge. But as 'a position' to bring into discourse is. Thus it is a necessary condition of skepticism to remain silent. Or only assert silence.
I don't understand any of this. My skepticism is completely irrelevant to the topics of logic, or atheism/theism. I am skeptical of anyone who claims to be an atheist because atheism is scientifically true, when I know that is an assertion, and not a proof itself. That doesn't mean I don't have an inclination the atheists are right, but I sure as hell can't prove it, and at this time, neither have they.
I think your issue with my position is that you misunderstand the basis of the negative proof fallacy, and my posts about proving negatives probably didn't help clarify it.
Aristotle and the law of non-contradiction, law of identity, etc. are rolling over in their graves. I haven't been following this thread otherwise, so my apologies for the interjection =)
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
LibertyStudent, the expression of your ideas has sadly been hampered by using 'negative proof' as the label for the fallacy you highlight. Since 'negative proof's' are established terminology for quite other things, I think you refer to Argument from ignorance fallacies.
I hope this might help people see where people are coming from. Though LibertyStudent has made his position very clear with his most recent posts, I just feel that 'negative proof' as a phrase obfuscates rather than illuminates in this matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
The confusion can actually be seen by going to the argument from ignorance section on the wiki, and seeing that people looking for 'negative proof' get directed there, even when the first sentence of 'proof of impossibility' entry lists negative proof as a synonym.
curious !
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Thank you for your clarification Nir.
nirgrahamUK:LibertyStudent, the expression of your ideas has sadly been hampered by using 'negative proof' as the label for the fallacy you highlight. Since 'negative proof's' are established terminology for quite other things, I think you refer to Argument from ignorance fallacies.
Indeed I am, and I linked to it many posts back, however telling people they are arguing from ignorance isn't conducive to having a discussion. That fallacy is poorly named, probably by some egghead with no friends.
haha, excellent point.
lets coin some new terminology then. I'm afraid it may be my only route to everlasting fame....
shall we call it 'argument from informational poverty' ?
your turn !
I suppose "Argument from lack of proof" is most descriptive.
Sorry, Nir. From the wiki link:
"Carl Sagan, famously, criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity" and pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"."
...sounds a bit better.
existence of arguments from ignorance != lack of negative proofs?
As an aside, I find it interesting how uncomfortable people become when their own sense of logic is shown to be based on less than logical premises. I know I went through that for at least 2 years before I could come to terms with my lack of knowledge and how most of my decisions to act are leaps of faith, and not the result of my rigorous crunching of all the data.
This awareness is useful when trying to talk to statists. I have made some people enraged by challenging their ideas (peacefully and non-confrontationally) about the warfare or welfare/regulatory state.
It's not too different from how upset Will Blake has become, to the point of starting to personalize the argument towards me, instead of the topic of discussion. I find when things get that far, it's better to back off. You can educate the lurkers, but someone emotionally invested in an argument is not going to listen to reason. This is also why I prefer not to promote libertarianism exclusively with gun in the room arguments, because they are guilt trips, and not an appeal to reason.
Quick question for logic experts such as liberty student: can you define "negative proof"?
E. R. Olovetto:Quick question for logic experts such as liberty student: can you define "negative proof"?
Did you read the thread? If not, read it and then get back to me with questions I haven't already covered.
The logical error you are talking about at the top of this page isn't a negative proof. Do you know what one is? If so, please define for me.
Did you read the entire thread, up to and including Nir's last couple posts? Because if you had, I don't believe you would be asking that question.
I read it all and don't think you know what you are talking about, to be quite frank. Please define "negative proof".
E. R. Olovetto:I read it all and don't think you know what you are talking about, to be quite frank.
So Nir understood me, and another person I discussed this with by PM understood me, but you do not?
I think the issue lies with your capacity to comprehend, not with the veracity of my argument.
You're welcome to challenge my argument.
Aliens and swans are at least logically valid, though. It doesn't matter if we've seen them or not. There is nothing illogical about having an alien body or being a bird and and 'existing'. Both are always perfectly possible since no one says aliens or swans aren't made of matter and exist simultaneously (or something else that makes it impossible). There is no need to point to one in terms of validity.
Both are on a higher level than the claim of theism.
'Existing' (or having consciousness) and no material form at the same time = not logically valid ever. Same as giant crying Jesus face outside the atmosphere or a square fitting in a smaller round hole (or finding such a square circle). There can never be evidence that backs up something that is logically invalid. Nor is any evidence ever necessary. Something must be valid first and then true. If it fails validity, it can't move forward to truth.
So Nir understood me, and another person I discussed this with by PM understood me, but you do not? I think the issue lies with your capacity to comprehend, not with the veracity of my argument. You're welcome to challenge my argument.
I think that you are having a bit of a problem with reading comprehension. I asked you a question and wasn't making any arguments.
John Ess:'Existing' (or having consciousness) and no material form at the same time = not logically valid ever.
Where did you derive the determination that in order to have a consiousness, something has to have a material form?
John Ess:There can never be evidence that backs up something that is logically invalid.
You're claiming a lack of evidence as evidence. That is logically invalid.
John Ess:Something must be valid first and then true. If it fails validity, it can't move forward to truth.
What is validity? That it does not contradict another proof? Or some aesthetic, like you don't think it is reasonable? Because the former deals with logic (and I will buy it), the latter with subjective values.
If you can prove that something cannot exist (have consciouness) and no material form, I am happy to accept that, although I am not sure it passes the test of falsifying God.
E. R. Olovetto:I think that you are having a bit of a problem with reading comprehension. I asked you a question and wasn't making any arguments.
If you have an argument, articulate it. If not, keep reading until you have one.