If your truly can't prove a negative then....

[Ken-1122]

Ah, so in full length the statement means "A negative cannot be proven when it cannot be proven"? Ok, then...

Actually when people make the statement "you can't prove a negative" it would be more accurate for them to say "many negatives cannot be proven and this is one of them". But most people don't go through the trouble to make the accurate statement so they just go with the easy one expecting the person they are debating to get it.

K

 

[quatona]

Actually when people make the statement "you can't prove a negative" it would be more accurate for them to say "many negatives cannot be proven and this is one of them". But most people don't go through the trouble to make the accurate statement so they just go with the easy one expecting the person they are debating to get it.

K

How about "you can´t prove this negative"?

Besides: Most of the time the reason why you can´t prove a particular negative is not the fact that it´s a negative...so it would suffice to say "You can´t prove this."

 

[Ken-1122]

How about "you can´t prove this negative"?

Besides: Most of the time the reason why you can´t prove a particular negative is not the fact that it´s a negative...

Humm.... Can you give an example of this please?

K

 

[quatona]

Humm.... Can you give an example of this please?

Well, for example the reasons that you can´t prove "God doesn´t exist" are manyfold - but the reason is not that it is a negative.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

I disagree! I believe most positives can be proven by testing.

I agree.

My point is that there is very little we can know beyond all doubt and with absolute certainty.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, for example the reasons that you can´t prove "God doesn´t exist" are manyfold - but the reason is not that it is a negative.

Yes it is! Trying to prove that something does not exist is trying to prove a negative. And the reason it is impossible to prove some Gods do not exist is because the question is phrased as a negative. BTW that works for Santa Clause too. Try again?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

I agree.

My point is that there is very little we can know beyond all doubt and with absolute certainty.

I disagree! What about anything related to math? Gravity? or all the other stuff that is tested, measured, and empiracally analysed?

K

 

[quatona]

Yes it is! Trying to prove that something does not exist is trying to prove a negative. And the reason it is impossible to prove some Gods do not exist is because the question is phrased as a negative. BTW that works for Santa Clause too. Try again?

No, it is not.
Since, as you have already conceded, there are negatives that can be proven, the reason for a negative to be unprovable cannot be that it´s a negative. The reason must lie somewhere else (e.g. in the fact that the subject in question is defined in a way that renders it unfalsifiable, or in the fact that the positive claim is too unspecific).

 

[KCfromNC]

Anselm was a Christian as I am and like myself, he did not think "The Greatest Conceivable Being" was different than the God of the Bible who is worshiped in church on Sunday.

Since I am of the view that "The Greatest Conceivable Being" is simply another descriptor of the God of the Bible, the two are one and the same to me.

This has been the classical definition for "God" in western philosophy, you are correct.

The descriptor is not an argument but can be used in an argument, namely, the Ontological Argument Anselm formulated and which is defended by contemporaries like Plantinga.

Just more evidence that you can't really tell which god is being discussed by any given Christian at any given time. Is the problem of evil a valid objection to the Teleological argument? It should be, if the god used in the argument is the Christian one. But the attributes given to god for that particular argument have nothing to do with being omni-benevolent, so how can evil have anything to do with it? The attributes made up for god in differ as needed for each argument, and different again from the ones used in ordinary worship (and that's pretending that the god worshiped there is constant, which it isn't). Slippery things, these gods.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

I disagree! What about anything related to math? Gravity? or all the other stuff that is tested, measured, and empiracally analysed?

K

Can you go outside of your five senses to test their veridicality?

The answer is obviously no.

Since we cannot, we cannot be certain that what we measure and test emprically utilizing our five senses is actually in accordance with what actually is. But we can be confident beyond a reasonable doubt. We observe patterns and assume these patterns and or laws will be the same tomorrow as they have been in the past. It is an assumption however.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Just more evidence that you can't really tell which god is being discussed by any given Christian at any given time. Is the problem of evil a valid objection to the Teleological argument? It should be, if the god used in the argument is the Christian one. But the attributes given to god for that particular argument have nothing to do with being omni-benevolent, so how can evil have anything to do with it? The attributes made up for god in differ as needed for each argument, and different again from the ones used in ordinary worship (and that's pretending that the god worshiped there is constant, which it isn't). Slippery things, these gods.

I think you are confused at least in some way regarding every topic you touched on. You misunderstand what the teleological argument is, how the "problem of evil" is viewed by propoents of the argument and what Christianity teaches about God in general.

Now out of respect for the OP , I will refrain from discussing the teleological argument here but if you want I can PM you or you can start a new thread and ask me all the questions you want regarding the argument.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, it is not.
Since, as you have already conceded, there are negatives that can be proven, the reason for a negative to be unprovable cannot be that it´s a negative. The reason must lie somewhere else (e.g. in the fact that the subject in question is defined in a way that renders it unfalsifiable, or in the fact that the positive claim is too unspecific).

I think I understand where you are getting at. Most things that can be disproven is that which can be empirically analyzed . Because most Gods can't be analyzed empirically, they can't be disproven.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Can you go outside of your five senses to test their veridicality?

The answer is obviously no.

Since we cannot, we cannot be certain that what we measure and test emprically utilizing our five senses is actually in accordance with what actually is. But we can be confident beyond a reasonable doubt. We observe patterns and assume these patterns and or laws will be the same tomorrow as they have been in the past. It is an assumption however.

That only works for those who assume that there is more to existence than what can be experienced via our 5 sences. For those of us who don't it doesn't work.

K

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

That only works for those who assume that there is more to existence than what can be experienced via our 5 sences. For those of us who don't it doesn't work.

K

In order to refute what I am saying, you will have to rely on circular reasoning or a tautology, which would make your argument fallacious.

For if I were to ask you how you know your five senses are completely 100% trustworthy, you would have to say because my five senses tell me they are.

But that is circular.

The only way for you to be 100% certain of the veridicality of your five senses would be to stand outside of them and judge them, but you cannot do that.

 

[quatona]

I think I understand where you are getting at. Most things that can be disproven is that which can be empirically analyzed . Because most Gods can't be analyzed empirically, they can't be disproven.

Yes, this could be one reason. There are may others - most of them can be found in the definition of the object in question.

You could, however, not disprove the existence of pink elephants - even though the definition doesn´t render their existence unfalsifiable. You have all the information required for looking for them but it is practically impossible because you´d have to have looked everywhere in the universe in order to disprove their existence. Theoretically, it´s possible to empirically test whether they exist, but it´s practically impossible.

 

[quatona]

For if I were to ask you how you know your five senses are completely 100% trustworthy, you would have to say because my five senses tell me they are.

While I agree that there is no way to prove that your five senses are completely 100% trustworthy (and while I actually don´t even think our senses are completely 100% trustworthy), I disagree with your argument.
The reasons given for or against the reliability of our senses are not necessarily references to our five senses. They can refer to other faculties.

Now, I don´t know why people who would like their claims to be sheltered from being subjected to the same scrutinity that they have no problem with subjecting every other claim to, suddenly invent the criterium "completely 100% trustworthy" and then discover their preference for epistemological nihilism. Something about that strikes me as fishy.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

While I agree that there is no way to prove that your five senses are completely 100% trustworthy (and while I actually don´t even think our senses are completely 100% trustworthy), I disagree with your argument.
The reasons given for or against the reliability of our senses are not necessarily references to our five senses. They can refer to other faculties.

There is no way to test the veridicality of our five senses unless we step outside of them.


But to be charitable I will give you the chance to name one faculty that is not dependent on our five senses that can be used to judge/test/confirm the veridicality of our five senses.

Now, I don´t know why people who would like their claims to be sheltered from being subjected to the same scrutinity that they have no problem with subjecting every other claim to, suddenly invent the criterium "completely 100% trustworthy" and then discover their preference for epistemological nihilism. Something about that strikes me as fishy.

State your view plainly.

Are you referring to me as one who "likes their claims to be sheltered from being subjected to the same scrutiny (which you misspelled) that they have no problem with subjecting every other claim to"?

I also need you to explain why I am an epistemological nihilist.

I also need you to explain to me what is fishy about what I have stated thus far.

 

[quatona]

There is no way to test the veridicality of our five senses unless we step outside of them.

So how do you think we arrived at identifying certain perceptions as optical illusions?

But to be charitable I will give you the chance to name one faculty that is not dependent on our five senses that can be used to judge/test/confirm the veridicality of our five senses.

Logic? Reason?

State your view plainly.

Are you referring to me as one who "likes their claims to be sheltered from being subjected to the same scrutiny (which you misspelled) that they have no problem with subjecting every other claim to"?

I don´t know if you are one of them - all I can tell is that you are using their tactics.

I also need you to explain why I am an epistemological nihilist.

Well, I am glad to help everyone having their needs met, even when they word their kind request in a way that sounds more like a demand.

I don´t know if you are one of them, but you are using their tactics:
Postulating an absolute criterium that can impossibly be met (and under application of which every claim is equal: it doesn´t meet the criterium) in order to distract from the fact that there are a lot of criteria that allow to differenciate between the validity of claims.

I also need you to explain to me what is fishy about what I have stated thus far.

Well, who could resist when someone says "I need you to..."?
Well, I think I have already explained that I find it fishy when people who spend their whole lives relying on stuff that they don´t know with "completely 100% trustworthiness" suddenly pull the "We can´t know anything with absolute certainty" card.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

So how do you think we arrived at identifying certain perceptions as optical illusions?

You misunderstood my statement.

I said there is no way to test the veridicality of our five senses. Veridicality is the degree to which an experience, perception, or interpretation accurately represents reality.

Being able to identify certain images as optical illusions in no way means that we can step outside of our visual sense and "see" reality apart from our visual sense which is what would be necessary in order for you to compare reality with what your visual sense's presentation of this "reality" is. In assessing veridicality, you are comparing two things:

1. The perception of reality from the sense in question
2. The reality apart from the sense

Since we cannot perceive reality apart from our senses (for our senses are our means for perceiving reality) we cannot test the veridicality of the sense. In other words, we are "locked" or "bound" in/to our senses.

Logic? Reason?

Logic is the use of valid reasoning, and all of this takes place within one's mind/brain in conjunction with our sensory perceptions. We can use logic or logical reasoning to draw conclusions or opinions about what we perceive via our five senses but not to test their veridicality. Logical reasoning does not take us outside of ourselves, but are processes that happen within our brains.

I don´t know if you are one of them - all I can tell is that you are using their tactics.

Who are "these" people you are referring to?

Postulating an absolute criterium that can impossibly be met (and under application of which every claim is equal: it doesn´t meet the criterium) in order to distract from the fact that there are a lot of criteria that allow to differenciate between the validity of claims.

Who uses this tactic?

Well, who could resist when someone says "I need you to..."?
Well, I think I have already explained that I find it fishy when people who spend their whole lives relying on stuff that they don´t know with "completely 100% trustworthiness" suddenly pull the "We can´t know anything with absolute certainty" card.

Why is that fishy?

I cannot prove with absolute certainty that I am not a brain in a vat, but I have lived my whole life assuming that I am not just a brain in a vat, but that I actually exist and have a mind and a physical body.

What is fishy about that?

 

[quatona]

You misunderstood my statement.

I said there is no way to test the veridicality of our five senses. Veridicality is the degree to which an experience, perception, or interpretation accurately represents reality.

It´s remarkable how those various definitions of "reality" either can´t manage to define reality without using "real" in their definition (whereas, for obvious reasons, it is not permitted for a definition to use the term that´s to be defined as a defining term), or even (#4) defines reality as the subjective experience itself.

Being able to identify certain images as optical illusions in no way means that we can step outside of our visual sense and "see" reality apart from our visual sense which is what would be necessary in order for you to compare reality with what your visual sense's presentation of this "reality" is.

I´ll ask again:
How do we get to discern optical illusions?
and, for clarity´s sake I´ll add the question:
Or do you reject those means of discernment right away?

In assessing veridicality, you are comparing two things:

1. The perception of reality from the sense in question
2. The reality apart from the sense

So the term veridicality, is by it´s very definition, impossible.
Ok.
So where do you plan to go from there?

Since we cannot perceive reality apart from our senses (for our senses are our means for perceiving reality) we cannot test the veridicality of the sense. In other words, we are "locked" or "bound" in/to our senses.

At least when trying to test the veradicality of one sense by using this very sense.
Fine. So where do you plan to go from raising a criterium that, per it´s own definition, can´t be met?

Logic is the use of valid reasoning, and all of this takes place within one's mind/brain in conjunction with our sensory perceptions.

Disagree. Logic and reasoning can be used in a completely abstract way.

We can use logic or logical reasoning to draw conclusions or opinions about what we perceive via our five senses but not to test their veridicality.

Yes, that´s right. When you insist that we have to "test" them, logic and reason aren´t the appropriate means. However, logic and reason can be used to scrutinize certain ideas without "testing" them empirically.

Logical reasoning does not take us outside of ourselves, but are processes that happen within our brains.

Well, you are changing the horses midstream.
So far, you referred to our senses as being unable to test the veradicality of our senses (which is, for obvious reasons, indeed impossible) - but here you are introducing new criteria: "take us outside ourselves", "processes that (don´t) happen in our brain" - both of which are not the same as "outside our senses".

Who are "these" people you are referring to?




Who uses this tactic?

I have described their tactics, I have tried to explain what´s wrong with those tactics.
Now, is this another instance where you want names?

Why is that fishy?

Because it´s inconsistent. Because it works by double standards.

I cannot prove with absolute certainty that I am not a brain in a vat, but I have lived my whole life assuming that I am not just a brain in a vat, but that I actually exist and have a mind and a physical body.

What is fishy about that?

Theres nothing fishy about that.
Please reread my statements as to what it is that smells fishy to me.