EVIDENCE

426 posts / 0 new
Last post
calhais's picture
It's nonsensical to imagine

It's nonsensical to imagine every atheist can achieve this on every single topic.

That doesn't seem to be what the guy argues.''

Sheldon's picture
Exactly my point, as it's

Exactly my point, as it's nonsensical to expect anyone to not sometimes exhibit bias about something. Is English your first language? Or are you just being disputatious for the sake of it again?

calhais's picture
I misread. Retracted.

I misread. Retracted.

arakish's picture
In actuality, I feel you have

In actuality, I feel you have misread everything you have responded to...

See, I can do an ad hominem also. But I can be nicer about it until pushed too far.

Beware of him that is slow to anger; for when it is long coming, it is the stronger when it comes, and the longer kept. Abused patience turns to fury. — Francis Quarles

rmfr

calhais's picture
That is not an fallacy ad

That is not a fallacy ad hominem.

Jarret Petty-two's picture
Ok, let’s do this the easy

Ok, let’s do this the easy way:

G(od)

[First thing first- G is not Contingent if and only if G is necessary or impossible. As G implies the Necessary Existence for all else in existence (therefore cannot be contingent on any other existent thing) G is only Necessary or Impossible.]

Necessarily, It is possible G exists if and only if it is not necessary G does not Exist.
It is necessary G exists if and only if it is not possible G does not exist. In other words, It is necessary G exists if and only if it is not impossible that G exists and it is impossible G exists if and only if it is not necessary G exists.

Are we logically consistent in defining that God must be necessarily necessary or else God is impossible? If so, moving on.

Impossible is most accurately defined as 0 probability or 0 chance. Thus, Impossible defined as 0 probability or 0 chance is materially equivalent to 0 probability or 0 chance equal to impossibility. However, 0 probability or 0 chance does not entail impossible, therefore 0 probability or 0 chance does not accurately define Impossible, logically implicating Impossible is impossible. Impossible being logically Impossible, G necessarily exists. (Please be sure to understand the nature of ‘impossible’).

Next: “Statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low, *but not truly impossible* as impossible outcomes have a probability of zero, while zero probability outcomes are necessarily not impossible.” A zero probability outcome is expressed as a denominator that approaches a constant before infinity and the entire expression approaches to a constant before absolute zero.

In relation to G, An impossible outcome is only an infinite approach to certainly impossible and never achieves 0 outcome or actual impossibility. The denominator of impossible outcome is most precisely defined as a constant infinity, where Infinite Impossible outcomes is infinitely accurate as necessarily impossible if and only if infinity is not infinity in the sense if infinity achieves infinity, thereby completing itself, it is inconsistent to infinity (now being finite), meaning the infinity of impossible outcomes will be inconsistent necessitating an outcome of possibility, and since G is not a contingent possibility, the outcome is necessary. Therefore G necessarily exists. (Please confirm these statements with statistical impossibility).

You probably have some questions about this right now, So I’ll explain:

This event occurs because Impossible is an effect rather than a cause, essentially conveying impossible is impossible (on the grounds of possibilities and probabilities), but what makes something actually impossible is if it lacks sufficient reason to exist at all, and conversely, what allows something to exist is if it has a sufficient (causal) reason to exist.

So we must understand the principle of sufficient reason and how it pertains to our existence:

The principle of sufficient reason states there is a sufficient (causal) reason for all that exists, introducing causality: the *connection* between cause and effect, where the cause is responsible for the effect, and the effect is dependent on the cause, with all existing states of events or objects determined by prior states of previously existing causes (causal determinism). In other words, everything that exists, is caused or sufficiently reasoned to exist by other sufficiently reasoned prior causes. God entails the first cause; the cause of all causes or reason of all reasons.

Existence is sufficiently reasoned to exist, like all other things that exist. If existence is not sufficiently reasoned to exist, then existence would not exist. The predicament arises in how existence is sufficiently reasoned to exist. There’s ultimately either the first Cause (God), supernatural magic (heuristic interpretation of God), infinite regress of causes (infinite contingency), or interdependent-teleological causation (which ultimately brings us right back to God). Only one of these explanations attempts to defy God—infinite regress of causes.

If existence is contingent on an infinite regress of causes, then 1) all labeled causes can be equally labeled as effects, rather than causes, insofar infinite regress of effects remain without cause, or 2) all that exists (and all causes) are ultimately contingent, and existence (with all causation) depends on causes outside of existence. Causes outside of existence are nonexistent causes. Causes that are nonexistent, don’t exist, since they exist outside of existence. Therefore, existence cannot be dependent on nonexistent causes, concluding existence is not dependent on infinite regress of causes. Existence only ‘regresses’ to the first cause of all existence, the first cause et al a.k.a God.

At this point in time, I’ll allow you time to consider and respond as you will. We will get to scientific evidence and data and proof once we get on the same page. I hope to hear from you soon.

calhais's picture
Applying a modal logic (as

Applying a modal logic (as you seem to have tried to do) to lone propositions, such as the proposition that God exists, doesn't work because modal logics are rather exactly defined over sets of multiple propositions.

Sapporo's picture
∃xistential Intelligence

∃xistential Intelligence seems to be arguing for the existence of god by saying it Necessarily Exists, and that this therefore means that everything in existence must also Necessarily Exist, as though Necessarily Existing was some special property of nature that proves that god exists.

You might as well say a thing necessarily exists because the laws of nature say they should - if they had been different, then the thing would not exist.

Sheldon's picture
"[First thing first- G is not

"[First thing first- G is not Contingent if and only if G is necessary or impossible. As G implies the Necessary Existence for all else in existence (therefore cannot be contingent on any other existent thing) G is only Necessary or Impossible.]"

Sigh, that's 3 seconds of my life I'm not getting back.

"At this point in time, I’ll allow you time to consider and respond as you will."

Don't tempt me, you're really poking the bear.

Sheldon's picture
"We will get to scientific

"We will get to scientific evidence and data and proof once we get on the same page. "

If you (or anybody else) has scientific evidence for the existence of a deity, why would you waste your time on a non scientific forum?

Theists always make these ridiculous claims in lieu of evidence they're going to present, but in every single case they never actually demonstrate any.

Here's a clue it's not scientific evidence until it satisfies the strict principles of validation the scientific method requires. Until then it's just a claim.

An essential part of any claim or idea is that it is falsifiable. Since all unfalsifiable claims are rejected out of hand as unscientific, that would be a good starting point and a refreshing change from the usual grandiose pseudoscientific claims theists make.

So tell us how you can falsify your claim a deity exists?

calhais's picture
If you (or anybody else) has

If you (or anybody else) has scientific evidence for the existence of a deity, why would you waste your time on a non scientific forum?

What would you propose they do instead? Publish? Good luck with that if you lack academic credentials.

Sheldon's picture
"What would you propose they

"What would you propose they do instead? Publish? Good luck with that if you lack academic credentials."

Well he claims to be able to evidence a deity. If I were him I'd contact the Templeton foundation. Maybe an open letter the Vatican?

xenoview's picture
∃xistential Intelligence

∃xistential Intelligence
You talk in circles. All you wrote was a big word salad.

Tin-Man's picture
@Xeno Re: EI and word salad

@Xeno Re: EI and word salad

Dude, that ain't word salad. That is a friggin' word GARDEN! Several acres, actually.

arakish's picture
And I glad someone else

And I glad someone else recognizes what I have been saying for the last three days.

Thanks, xenoview.

But I also have to agree with Tin-Man, except perhaps bump it up to Word Farm.

rmfr

Dave Matson's picture
Existential,

Existential,

Are we logically consistent in defining that God must be necessarily necessary or else God is impossible? If so, moving on.

You can't define something into physical existence. You are just playing a philosophical word game.

Sheldon's picture
10/10, bulls eye, nailed it,

10/10, bulls eye, nailed it, etc etc..

Sapporo's picture
God only necessarily exists

God only necessarily exists if it exists. I doubt that it can be proved that there was a first cause.

arakish's picture
I see Subjective Awareness is

I see Subjective Awareness is cross posting his horse hoowhee.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Still waiting for Existential

Still waiting for Existential int to explain how his claim a deity exists can be falsified? And of course for him to properly define the deity he claims exists.

calhais's picture
On whom rests the burden of

By Hitchens's so-called razor, the burden of proving that a proposition is unfalsifiable lies with the person who claims that the proposition is unfalsifiable, not with the person who presents the proposition. An argument ad ignorantiam would not be an acceptable way to assert that the proposition is unfalsifiable, and, in the absence of proof that a proposition is unfalsifiable, it should not be assumed that it is unfalsifiable, just as it should not be assumed that it is falsifiable.

Sheldon's picture
"

"
By Hitchens's so-called razor, the burden of proving that a proposition is unfalsifiable lies with the person who claims that the proposition is unfalsifiable, not with the person who presents the proposition. "

I disagree, I have not asserted his claim is unfalsifiable, I have asked him to show how he thinks it is falsifiable.

" in the absence of proof that a proposition is unfalsifiable, it should not be assumed that it is unfalsifiable,"

I dislike the word proof here as it implies absolute knowledge, but again I have assumed nothing, and if you read my post again you might notice I merely asked a question as to whether he had a method to falsify his claim.

I don't know what you mean to imply by "so called" before Hitchens's razor, but the burden of proof is clearly with whoever makes the primary assertion without proper evidence, as of course he did in his OP, ironically that he could evidence a deity.

calhais's picture
By Hitchens's so-called razor
By Hitchens's so-called razor, the burden of proving that a proposition is unfalsifiable lies with the person who claims that the proposition is unfalsifiable, not with the person who presents the proposition.

I have not asserted his claim is unfalisifiable [sic] . . . .

No, you didn't assert that, nor did I assert that you had. Why, then, do you write that you disagree?

I wrote `so-called' before the word `razor' because I would prefer that the word `razor' not be applied to Hitchens's famous proposition. It is not a razor in the same way that Hume's razor, for example, is. A razor ought to be a kind of novel distinction, whereas Hitchens only applied a distinction that has been known since Plato--namely, the distinction between the claimant and the respondent.

Sheldon's picture
calhais " you didn't assert

calhais " you didn't assert that, nor did I assert that you had."

Then I have no idea what you mean by...

"By Hitchens's so-called razor, the burden of proving that a proposition is unfalsifiable lies with the person who claims that the proposition is unfalsifiable, not with the person who presents the proposition."

Then who are you implying claimed his proposition was unfalsifiable, and why did you make the observation in a reply to my post where I had not claimed it was unfalsifiable, but merely asked his if had any method to falsify his claim in the OP?

This my original post fwiw. "Still waiting for Existential int to explain how his claim a deity exists can be falsified? And of course for him to properly define the deity he claims exists."

What relevance does Hitchens's razor have to my question, or post I don't know, as I made no claim in either?

calhais's picture
Then I have no idea what you

Then I have no idea what you mean by...

"By Hitchens's so-called razor, the burden of proving that a proposition is unfalsifiable lies with the person who claims that the proposition is unfalsifiable, not with the person who presents the proposition."

I meant exactly what I wrote; I made the statement general because I thought that it might become more relevant.

Then who are you implying claimed his proposition was unfalsifiable . . . .

No-one, yet.

Sheldon's picture
So when I asked Existential

So when I asked Existential if he knew of any way his claim might be falsified or if indeed it was falsifiable, you were minded to respond that "the burden of proving that a proposition is unfalsifiable lies with the person who claims that the proposition is unfalsifiable, not with the person who presents the proposition." Even though no one had claimed it was unfalsifiable?

So he (Existential) made a claim, and I asked him to show whether the claim was falsifiable, so the burden of proof is his we can agree. Though I suspect he is now long gone anyway, as indeed so many theists and apologist are after they enter her with the same grandiose claims for evidence that a deity exists. Like arakish I notice many of them have styled their claims around the spiel of apologists like William Lane Craig. Their MO never seems to vary, in either form or substance. The last one was called Someone, almost a dozen pages of his repetitive verbiage before he called it quits, and nary a shred of real evidence presented.

calhais's picture
So when I asked Existential

So when I asked Existential if he knew of any way his claim might be falsified or if indeed it was falsifiable, you were minded to respond that "the burden of proving that a proposition is unfalsifiable lies with the person who claims that the proposition is unfalsifiable, not with the person who presents the proposition." Even though no one had claimed it was unfalsifiable?

Yes; that is what my last comment more or less said.

So he (Existential) made a claim, and I asked him to show whether the claim was falsifiable, so the burden of proof is his we can agree. Though I suspect he is now long gone anyway, as indeed so many theists and apologist are after they enter her with the same grandiose claims for evidence that a deity exists. Like arakish I notice many of them have styled their claims around the spiel of apologists like William Lane Craig. Their MO never seems to vary, in either form or substance. The last one was called Someone, almost a dozen pages of his repetitive verbiage before he called it quits, and nary a shred of real evidence presented.

It's obvious that your standards are too high. You should start with the goal of getting these guys to calm down and discuss things sincerely.

Sheldon's picture
Well he's gone so taking our

Well he's gone so taking our time wasn't really an option, and his routine was pretty typical. Breeze in, make an absurdly grandiose claim, scoff at the atheists questions, then leave without the pretence of ever offering the aforementioned evidence.

calhais's picture
Well he's gone so taking our

Well he's gone so taking our time wasn't really an option . . . .

You're right that it's done and over, but I'm really talking about the future. He might not have left so quickly if he had found a more carefully directed conversation.

Ramo Mpq's picture
Hello All,

Hello All,

I know I am 13 pages late so I apologize if this question has already been answered but, what will qualify as acceptable evidence for this conversation?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.