Tricks New Atheists and Theists Play (Part 1)

Tree of Life said:

I think we could define "universally persuasive" in a way that excepted people with mental disabilities or mental illness.

Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about smart people. And they think the same about me!

The capacity for gullibility or even plain error in normal humans renders premise 1 unacceptable.

durangodawood said:

No, I'm talking about smart people. And they think the same about me!

The capacity for gullibility in normal humans renders premise 1 unacceptable.

Click to expand...

Ok. So you admit that a proof might not be universally persuasive. Are you sure you want to make that move?

Tree of Life said:

1. If my naked skin touches the fire then it will get burned.
2. My skin did not get burned.
3. Therefore my naked skin did not touch the fire.

Click to expand...

Another disputable premise 1. I've touched fire hundreds of times without getting burned.

Tree of Life said:

Ok. So you admit that a proof might not be universally persuasive. Are you sure you want to make that move?

Click to expand...

Of course. What choice do I have? People are fallible.

durangodawood said:

Of course. What choice do I have?

Click to expand...

So then something can be a proof without persuading you. Who are you to deny that I've successfully proven a negative?

durangodawood said:

Another disputable premise 1. I've touched fire hundreds of times without getting burned.

Click to expand...

1. If my naked skin is exposed to fire for five seconds then it will get burned.
2. My skin did not get burned.
3. Therefore my naked skin was not exposed to fire for five seconds.

Tree of Life said:

So then something can be a proof without persuading you. Who are you to deny that I've successfully proven a negative?

Click to expand...

I'm telling you why I'm not persuaded. its not about me. Its about the argument I'm making.

durangodawood said:

I'm telling you why I'm not persuaded. its not about me. Its about the argument I'm making.

Click to expand...

Well it doesn't matter whether or not you're persuaded. It's still a successful proof.

Tree of Life said:

Maybe you could define what you think constitutes proof.

Click to expand...

I believe I've already said that proof is for math and alcohol. The best we can hope for, besides math and formal logic, is assumptions.

ToddNotTodd said:

I believe I've already said that proof is for math and alcohol. The best we can hope for, besides math and formal logic, is assumptions.

Click to expand...

Would you say that you know that?

Tree of Life said:

1. If my naked skin is exposed to fire for five seconds then it will get burned.
2. My skin did not get burned.
3. Therefore my naked skin was not exposed to fire for five seconds.

Click to expand...

Works for me.

But we sure did have to tighten up the premises a lot. I'm not sure that could ever work for anything remotely controversial. I think it has to be just in your face obvious. The kind of thing for which "proof" is really superfluous.

durangodawood said:

Works for me.

But we sure did have to tighten up the premises a lot. I'm not sure that could ever work for anything remotely controversial. I think it has to be just in your face obvious. The kind of thing for which "proof" is really superfluous.

Click to expand...

I have proven that a negative statement can be proven.

Tree of Life said:

1. If my naked skin touches the fire then it will get burned.
2. My skin did not get burned.
3. Therefore my naked skin did not touch the fire.

Click to expand...

Never moved a finger through a candle flame?

Uber Genius said:

"YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE!"

The statement above is uttered repeatedly by theists and atheists alike. Professors make the above statement as frequently as high-school students. Is it true?

Here is an article that will help people more accurately understand why we want to consider the claim more carefully before we mindlessly repeat it.

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

After engaging the argument weigh-in on the claims and if you were able to change your position or at least soften entrenched beliefs on the matter.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that logical reasoning is not designed to provide 'proof' of anything. Rather I suggest that logical reasoning is best used to provide guidance to decision making either in one's life, one's business or just where one might look for something that is lost.

Since all logic is based on premises, it is important make the premises represent what is true as best that we know truth or based on some other criteria we can all agree on.

Let me give an example that I've used in the past:

I'm given a book which some people want me to believe is 'God's Word' (no I'm not picking on anyone here, it could be the Bible, it could the Koran, or any other book like the Da Vinci Code) and I want to use logic to determine the validity of their claim.

I go the the classical definition of God which says that God is perfect in all ways. I use that a my first premise. Then I read the book looking for errors of all kinds to determine if the book appears to be perfect. I use the outcome of that as premise two.

The result of my logic is:

1. God is perfect in all ways
2. The book is not perfect

Conclusion is that the book is NOT the product of God.

The catch with all logic is that there is no way to be absolutely certain you have correctly found the truth. But the exercise provides one with solid basis to make a decision on whether I should accept the claims of the people telling me it is 'God's Word' or not. In this case, it would be clear the best thing for me to do is reject that claim based on logic.

If one were to change the premises, the conclusion may also change. In this case, if I decide that while God is perfect, it is also acceptable that God 'could' deliberately make something that is imperfect. THEN my conclusion about the book would have to change to 'it is unknowable' whether the book is the product of God.

In truth, one can make one's premises in pretty much any way one wants and achieve different conclusions. Logic in the hands of a trickster can be difficult to recognize that one is being tricked into taking a likely poor decision. That happens a lot on forums as people attempt to make their POV appear to be logically proper.

Nithavela said:

Click to expand...

See my modified syllogism in post #66. It may not help since you deny things like cause and effect relationships.

Tree of Life said:

I have proven that a negative statement can be proven.

Click to expand...

Can you prove that all negatives can be proven?

Nithavela said:

Can you prove that all negatives can be proven?

Click to expand...

Certainly not. No one would make such an outrageous claim. People typically claim that negatives can never be proven. But I've demonstrated here that some negatives can be proven.

Tree of Life said:

See my modified syllogism in post #66. It may not help since you deny things like cause and effect relationships.

Click to expand...

No, I dont.

Nithavela said:

No, I dont.

Click to expand...

Ah. Then could you supply an "If A then B" proposition that you accept? From this I could show you how to prove a negative.

Tree of Life said:

Certainly not. No one would make such an outrageous claim.

Click to expand...

Then I fail to see the relevance of this to anything.

If you get really, really specific and can prove your premises, you can prove a negative. For example, you can prove that a tree is not an apple tree because it produces pears.

But this has little value in discussions about such ephermal things as, for example, the non-existence of supernatural beings.

What you fail to see is that the proving of the negative is something that theists demand from non-theists. They demand them to prove that there is no god or that jesus didnt walk on water or such things. I was not denying your claims to be mean or enrage you, I was denying them to show you hard it is to find an example for a negative that can actually be proven.

Now imagine having to prove something that is in outer space or centuries ago, and you should easily see how the request for such a proof is beyond silly.