Atheism

[Non sequitur]

I gotta another little quote for you

"you can't prove atheism because you can't prove a negative about anything without absolute knowledge."

So, that's a "no" on being able to elaborate on your contradicting statements.

Got it.

(Btw, you don't "prove" or "disprove" a lack of belief. You should understand definitions and concepts of things, first. Your lack of doing so (or ability) is rather old and tired.)

 

[createdtoworship]

So, that's a "no" on being able to elaborate on your contradicting statements.

Got it.

(Btw, you don't "prove" or "disprove" a lack of belief. You should understand definitions and concepts of things, first. Your lack of doing so (or ability) is rather old and tired.)

you are saying that you don't "believe" there is no God?

 

[Non sequitur]

you are saying that you don't "believe" there is no God?

Technically, I'm a theological noncognitivist.

 

[createdtoworship]

Technically, I'm a theological noncognitivist.

first line of wikipedia on this matter

"1. agrees with atheists that the word "God" does not refer to anything that exists."

Theological noncognitivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do you agree with that statment?

 

[Non sequitur]

first line of wikipedia on this matter

"1. agrees with atheists that the word "God" does not refer to anything that exists."

Theological noncognitivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do you agree with that statment?

Yes, I lack a belief in "gods". More so, because it assumes too much about the concept of "gods".

It's like saying, "Do you believe in Ihasqwertyigal"? I have no idea what that is.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, I lack a belief in "gods". More so, because it assumes too much about the concept of "gods".

It's like saying, "Do you believe in Ihasqwertyigal"? I have no idea what that is.

if God's or God doesn't exist, you can't prove it. You have to have absolute knowledge of all of the universe to prove God isn't behind some asteroid somewhere. also- A negative statement can hold true only when a positive has been proven. "It is not possible to prove a negative otherwise."

 

[Eudaimonist]

the allowing and causing is a grey area with causation.

It's not a grey area at all. It depends on one's concept of causation. The physics is very clear on what happens, and you should learn from Wiccan Child. He is an expert on these matters.

But heavy nucleus's do cause radium decay. Because they are unstable. They both allow and cause, not allow and not cause.

No, according to event-event causality, the decay of an unstable nucleus is uncaused because there is no event that causes the decay. (This is true, if one uses this language of causation.) We say that such a nucleus is unstable because decay might take place. Unstableness isn't an event that leads to another event.

According to entity causality, the unstable nucleus (but not any particular event) is the cause of its decay because it is the sort of thing that decays. It is in its nature to decay, although without the need for any event to precipitate that.

So, the need for a distinction between causing and allowing is a philosophical side-effect of the concept of event-event causality. In entity causation, there is no need for the distinction. Causing and "allowing" are the same thing, and one might as well just use the word causing. I personally think that entity causation more conceptually elegant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandwiches]

if God's or God doesn't exist, you can't prove it.

Why not? How do you know this?

You have to have absolute knowledge of all of the universe to prove God isn't behind some asteroid somewhere.

Can the same be said about the Flying Spaghetti monster, yes or no?

 

[Non sequitur]

if God's or God doesn't exist, you can't prove it. You have to have absolute knowledge of all of the universe to prove God isn't behind some asteroid somewhere. also- A negative statement can hold true only when a positive has been proven. "It is not possible to prove a negative otherwise."

Negative statements hold true, until proven to be positive.

There is no Tqweinusosjgddjhjh, until it is proven that there is such a thing. It "exists" in the negative, until then.

Null hypothesis is the default, not the other way around.

 

[createdtoworship]

Negative statements hold true, until proven to be positive.

There is no Tqweinusosjgddjhjh, until it is proven that there is such a thing. It "exists" in the negative, until then.

Null hypothesis is the default, not the other way around.

nice turn around, but you are wrong. Positives are true until proven negative (innocent until proven guilty). you are saying guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

nice turn around, but you are wrong. Positives are true until proven negative (innocent until proven guilty). you are saying guilty until proven innocent.

Err, no. Here's a positive statement: "I have a dinosaur in my garden. Also, a unicorn". According to you, it's logical to believe that statement is true until someone can disprove it (but the dinosaur is invisible, and tiny, and doesn't excrete... and suddenly, it can't be disproven, which means it's always logical to believe in it!). This is not how logic works. The onus of proof is on me to prove my claim, not on your to disprove it. Logically, we disbelieve any claim if there's no good reason to believe it.

That's why I'm a weak atheist. Both the claim that God exists and the claim that God doesn't exist are without substantial support, so I reject them both.

And, "innocent until proven guilty" is just as much a positive claim as "guilty until proven innocent". We adopt the former instead of the latter because precedence is placed on helping the innocent over punishing the guilty - we'd rather protect all innocents, even if a few guilty people slip through, than punish all guilty people and falsely punish a few innocents. But, ultimately, both are positive claims.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think what we find throughout the history of science/philosophy is the problem in that scientists don't always do well in formulating the questions that need to be answered, but, once the question has been formulated, usually by the philosopher and asked the scientists excel in finding the answers.

Can you give examples of this happening in the case of, say, general relativity? In my view it's generally reality asking the questions, so to speak, and scientists trying to find answers.

 

[TScott]

Can you give examples of this happening in the case of, say, general relativity? In my view it's generally reality asking the questions, so to speak, and scientists trying to find answers.

I probably could, but I don't think I could explain my position better than Albert Einstein (fairly well versed in General Relativity) who said,

"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system."

 

[createdtoworship]

Err, no. Here's a positive statement: "I have a dinosaur in my garden. Also, a unicorn". According to you, it's logical to believe that statement is true until someone can disprove it (but the dinosaur is invisible, and tiny, and doesn't excrete... and suddenly, it can't be disproven, which means it's always logical to believe in it!). This is not how logic works. The onus of proof is on me to prove my claim, not on your to disprove it. Logically, we disbelieve any claim if there's no good reason to believe it.

That's why I'm a weak atheist. Both the claim that God exists and the claim that God doesn't exist are without substantial support, so I reject them both.

And, "innocent until proven guilty" is just as much a positive claim as "guilty until proven innocent". We adopt the former instead of the latter because precedence is placed on helping the innocent over punishing the guilty - we'd rather protect all innocents, even if a few guilty people slip through, than punish all guilty people and falsely punish a few innocents. But, ultimately, both are positive claims.

you have any references for the "guilty until proven innocent" logic? After all you are the one claiming "The onus of proof is on me to prove my claim, not on your to disprove it" Besides maybe there is a dinasaur and unicorn in the garden, you never know until you prove it wrong. Here is another link suporting universal negatives as false.....

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

 

[createdtoworship]

Reminds me of an atheist who is mad at God. How can an atheist be mad at something that doesn't exist.

 

[RoadWarrior]

Whew! I thought I was the only one thinking that.

 

[Non sequitur]

Reminds me of an atheist who is mad at God. How can an atheist be mad at something that doesn't exist.

That would be something other than an atheist.

 

[PraiseToAslan]

Reminds me of an atheist who is mad at God. How can an atheist be mad at something that doesn't exist.

...and spend so much time and emotions while honestly believing in no God.

 

[Non sequitur]

nice turn around, but you are wrong. Positives are true until proven negative (innocent until proven guilty). you are saying guilty until proven innocent.

"You are a horrible person and incredibly inept."

There is a positive statement, for you.

Now, by your own logic, it holds true until you can prove it is not.

Good luck.

(I like your logic, when used against you.)

 

[RoadWarrior]

That would be something other than an atheist.

Agreed with this also. Regardless of how a person labels themselves, their actions define them. Someone who spends a lot of time ridiculing the beliefs of others seems to have more going on mentally than simply standing by their own spiritual beliefs (or lack of them).