Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And I don't rest my belief in God on any of the arguments I give here. It is just that the type of a posteriori evidence for God doesn't translate well, at least not over the internet. Friends who were atheist and engaged me over time get to experience those evidences but not until they have a good knowledge of who I am and why they are more likely true than made up.
This goes back to how one conceives of epistemology.
I'm obviously a moderate foundationalist. But if one is a constructivist. They might deny such justification of knowledge suggesting that history, culture, society impinge heavily to make strong claims.
Even coherentists would deny that our knowledge goes from a few a priori immediate beliefs, to inferred more complex ones, and instead suggest that our knowledge operates like a web. So the assumptions one makes epistemically will create the a set of propositions one allows to count as evidence or reasons for any knowledge claim.
My goals here are modest: to get atheist, agnostics, and theists to understand the difference between good arguments and bad ones. To engage the premises and not the arguers, and to become deeper in their knowledge of this important question no matter how compelling or dubious they find those premises and various arguments.
My goals here are modest: to get atheist, agnostics, and theists to understand the difference between good arguments and bad ones. To engage the premises and not the arguers, and to become deeper in their knowledge of this important question no matter how compelling or dubious they find those premises and various arguments.
Of course you can prove a negative, as long as you can prove a positive that is mutually exclusive to said negative.
Example:
If scorpions exist, then God does not exist.
Scorpions exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.
You might not accept the premises, but that's how a negative proof would look.
Ur old.…I'm just waiting for this negative proof to rock us like a hurricane. But, so far, there's not even a breeze. What gives?
Ur old.
Both.
According to modus tollens, a negative can easily be proven:
1. If A then B.
2. Not B.
3. Therefore not A.
If a person wants to prove "not A", all they have to do is establish a necessary relationship between B and A and then demonstrate "not B". Here would be an example in the form of a theological argument:
1. If atheism is true then moral norms do not exist.
2. Moral norms do exist.
3. Therefore atheism is not true.
"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.
This could theoretically be proven if we were able to gain an adequately exhaustive knowledge of Jupiter's orbit. It could also be logically inferred:
1. If a teapot is orbiting Jupiter then it came from planet earth.
2. No teapot has ever been sent from planet earth to Jupiter.
3. Therefore a teapot is not orbiting Jupiter.
Which premise would you challenge?
insightful! Yet not to the pointPlease prove that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter.
with all due respect to your atheist discussion partners...And that gets us closer to the essential thing people meant (regardless of how poorly they state it) -- that a person hasn't personally been able to observe or see easy proof of something does not prove it does not exist.
I haven't seen nor expect to ever see or be able to pin down what in physics is called 'dark matter' (an unknown stuff thought to be some kind of matter making up most of the matter in the Universe) -- yet I know better than to conclude from the fact it cannot be observed even after much attempts to observe it (it can only be inferred, and maps of it are actually computer calculations of where it would be if a type of matter) that therefore it doesn't exist. I know better. I know I'd better not try to think it is proven it does not exist. It's a kind of common sense. Common sense at times fails. But we use it often becuase it very often works.
It's good sense (or common sense) to be aware that if you can never find something, and no one else could pin it down either, not to unwisely conclude it does not exist.
It is merely not-yet-found. Nothing more.
An extra wrinkle for the agnostic or atheist in relation with God -- some other people (like me) say they have found Him, and while agnostics are in a defensible temporary logical position, many atheists on the other hand who assert with certainty He doesn't exist are trying to assert if they cannot find something or see simple verifiable evidence of it then they can conclude it positively does not exist, which is just bad thinking.
I don't know, the catholic church and the orthodox church have miracles that work every year. And whenever someone gets saved by modern medicine or a baby is born, some people claim a miracle, too.with all due respect to your atheist discussion partners...
the Bible has NEVER claimed miracles on earth, or miraculous communications from God in heaven to chosen humans on earth...
are frequent, commonplace, every day events a penny apiece
no -- major miracles and miraculous prophesying only occur say once per century on overall average
even in OT Israel times, the average population was a few MILLION... And every other generation there was ONE prophet
the Biblically REPORTED chances of being chosen by God in heaven to receive His communications is like winning the lottery jackpot
your atheist discussion partners do NOT generalize to all humanity, everywhere and when
and they do NOT analogize to Moses, Elijah and Elisha
so they can't say, "God in heaven never contacted me... So He couldn't have contacted Moses either"
your atheist discussion partners DO analogize directly to the millions of nameless Israelites in the far background of the biblical narrative...
many of whom didn't believe, even when they saw Elijah call down fire from heaven, and get whisked heavenward by a fiery tornado
the NT mentions this
Luke 16:29-31, “Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, IF THEY HEAR NOT MOSES AND THE PROPHETS, NEITHER WILL THEY BE PERSUADED, THOUGH ONE ROSE FROM THE DEAD.”
Somehow, some people are prone to dismissing anything they don't see themselves... Their forebears witnessed Moses and the prophets, and didn't remain convinced... And down through time apples have never fallen far from trees
The existence of this thing we call "gravity"? Thats a pretty low bar.So "proven" in the sense that scientists claim gravity is "proven".
That depends on how hard we've looked for the teapot....But luckily we can approach the premises by way of "what evidence do we have that there is a teapot in space?"
So the response because we don't have any evidence doesn't mean it isn't there just commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance....
But you sure can salt his oats...well, you can lead a horse to water, but … !
This is such a good point. I was truly surprised when our bible study group read Numbers , during which time I decided I needed to freshly read Exodus, and the repeated situation with Israel that big miracles would happen, the big, dramatic, impossible seeming kind, right in front of their eyes, the column of fire, the parting of the sea, the plauges, the water from the rock. Big stuff. Yet, in spite of the big stuff right in front of their eyes, many would not believe fully. It was just...surprising to see that. How much does it take for someone to believe that is cautious even? For me, it was quite a few things (but not so large as these!), and together like perhaps a dozen was enough to know then there is no longer any doubt. But these people had much more drastically dramatic and huge miracles right in front of them, with all their friends witnessing too, and still many had less than full faith, and many just seemed to outright not believe.many of whom didn't believe, even when they saw Elijah call down fire from heaven, and get whisked heavenward by a fiery tornado
So here we are getting at the dos and don'ts of claims and evidence whether they be in philosophy or a court room.That depends on how hard we've looked for the teapot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?