What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Hee_Zen]

Speaking of which, what “epistemiological method” was used to find out that…?

The very same which was used to proclaim that: “a circle is the collection of points which are equidistant from a specific point”. I leave the details as a homework. But, of course, I see your point. There are certain basic propositions which are not subject to “proofs”. They are the foundation of everything else. In the formal systems they are called “axioms”, in the inductive systems they are called basic principles.

Oh, and, by the way, if you are unwilling to teach logic, I have nothing against doing it myself. “Universal negative” is a proposition of the form “No X are Y.” (or “All X are not Y.”), while “particular negative” is a proposition of form “Some X are not Y.” (see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article “The Traditional Square of Opposition” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/). Contrary to your claim, the proposition “No post in the 43rd page of this thread has been made by a current forum moderator.” is obviously a universal negative (with X being “posts in the 43rd page of this thread” and Y - “posts made by current forum moderator”). Thus the counterexample stands.

Point taken. But you could not “prove” that there was no post made by a moderator. Theists love to proclaim that “God cannot be disproved” as if the lack of a **logical proof **would lend credence to their claim that “God exists”. You cannot prove in a logical fashion that there are no posts were made by a moderator. After all you cannot know that a moderator does not have a “normal” alias, so there could well be a post from a moderator in “disguise”.

Unfortunately, 1) Logic is an axiomatic system, 2) you have claimed that one cannot be completely certain without such a proof, thus, if this your claim was right, you wouldn’t be able to claim that “universal negative cannot be proved etc.” with complete certainty…

Except that the claim that “universal negative cannot be proved” is NOT a claim of logic, it is a claim of epistemology.

 

[magnet]

If God were a discreet entity, then He would have certain qualities throughout.

But if God were not a discreet entity, then there could naturally be mixtures of qualities that can transition gradually from one set of qualities to another that could be imperceptible to the average person. It’s like pouring sugar into a cup of coffee. It’s still coffee with added sugar, but until that cup is stirred up, the mixture will be different at the top of the cup as opposed to the bottom.

So, is God a discrete entity? One could prove scientifically which He is, by performing repeatable acts in various part of the world to see how God would react.

 

[MPat]

Whoa, hang on. I didn’t describe Zeus. You did. The term ‘as described’ is yours.

Yes, that’s the point.

I’m not having you make up an imaginary god (as described) that fits with your interpretation of him (he lives in a palace on Mt Olympus) and then claim that because you can’t find a palace he doesn’t exist (and in any case, don’t you agree that absence of evidence etc is a valid concept?).

OK, let’s look at the challenge:

The point was how you could prove a negative.

If you think a dragon in the basement isn’t worth the effort, then pick a god from another religion, one that has significant meaning for many people and prove it’s non-existence. You will be as succesful as I would be in attempting to prove the non-existence of the Abrahamic God.

I did choose a god that “had significant meaning for many people” (in Ancient Greece). There were at least a significant number of people, who believed that he was as described in the Greek mythology (as noted in, let’s say, Plato’s “Euthyphro”). I have offered an argument showing that this kind of god does not exist. Now that “this kind of god does not exist” is a negative and I have proved it. Therefore, negatives can be proved.

Absence of evidence can show that something does not exist, if existence of that “something” would lead to existence of that evidence. It can show far less when existence of that “something” does not lead to existence this evidence.

Would you accept me saying that God is meant to have destroyed the planet with a flood and saved a family by getting them to build an ark and as we can’t find the ark He doesn’t exist? Get out of here…

No, you would have to demonstrate that there was no ark at the time of the flood, not only that it does not exist now. There is no reason why we should expect a wooden object from long time ago to survive intact until now.

I’m pretty sure I knew that anyway. But if I can’t use mythology to disprove your god, then you can’t use it to disprove mine. Sound reasonable?

“mine [god]”? Um, are you saying that you, being an atheist, believe in Zeus…?

But seriously, the point is to avoid strawman fallacy. If some ancient Greeks believed those myths were true, it is OK to use those myths against them. Then their version of Zeus can be shown not to exist. If some neopagans do not believe those myths to be true, then the same argument would not work against them. Their version of Zeus cannot be shown not to exist in the same way.

Zeus still exists (and even has real people praying to him now - something I’ll bet neither of us knew before today).

You mean you haven’t heard of neopagans previously? Then I guess that you’re in luck, as some of them have been present in the “Non-Catholic Religions” subforum. For example, look at the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=823275.

 

[MPat]

The very same which was used to proclaim that: “a circle is the collection of points which are equidistant from a specific point”. I leave the details as a homework. But, of course, I see your point. There are certain basic propositions which are not subject to “proofs”. They are the foundation of everything else. In the formal systems they are called “axioms”, in the inductive systems they are called basic principles.

Well, looks like we have found enough agreement to end that part of discussion.

Point taken. But you could not “prove” that there was no post made by a moderator. Theists love to proclaim that “God cannot be disproved” as if the lack of a **logical proof **would lend credence to their claim that “God exists”. You cannot prove in a logical fashion that there are no posts were made by a moderator. After all you cannot know that a moderator does not have a “normal” alias, so there could well be a post from a moderator in “disguise”.

That also seems to be close enough to agreement.

Not to mention that (if I remember correctly) the poster who “provoked” this part of discussion might have meant “proof” in the sense closer to the one used in Law (“proof beyond reasonable doubt” and the like)…

 

[Bradski]

I did choose a god that “had significant meaning for many people” (in Ancient Greece). There were at least a significant number of people, who believed that he was as described in the Greek mythology (as noted in, let’s say, Plato’s “Euthyphro”). I have offered an argument showing that this kind of god does not exist.

No you haven’t. You have assumed that Zeus did actually live in a temple on Olympus that would be accessible to mere mortals and have simply said that no such temple has been found. All that does is either cast some doubt on whether he did actually live in such a palace (that part of the story is simple mythology) or suggests that you simply haven’t found it (Zeus was supernatural so it’s not likely he’s going to give out his postal address).

Absence of evidence can show that something does not exist, if existence of that “something” would lead to existence of that evidence.

If the existence of a temple would prove that Zeus existed, then having no evidence of the temple does not mean he didn’t. Logic doesn’t come any simpler than that.

No, you would have to demonstrate that there was no ark at the time of the flood, not only that it does not exist now. There is no reason why we should expect a wooden object from long time ago to survive intact until now.

Exactly. The ark example fails to prove a negative just as the temple one does.

“mine [god]”? Um, are you saying that you, being an atheist, believe in Zeus…?

My secret is out.

But seriously, the point is to avoid strawman fallacy.

No, the point was that it is impossible to prove a negative. You’re doing a good job.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, the point was that it is impossible to prove a negative. You’re doing a good job.

If, indeed, it is impossible to prove a negative, that does seem to create a problem for atheism, no?

Atheism is, after all, the negative of theism. It is the claim that God does not exist – a negative claim that you say is impossible to prove.

Minimally, a view that is “impossible” to prove would be not only less compelling than one that could possibly be proved, but it would be downright nonsensical to take a position that would be impossible to prove.

Therefore, atheism would be the most irrational of the three options – theism, agnosticism or atheism – since it alone would be impossible to prove.

Good on you, Bradski, for arguing yourself out of your own position.

We’ll wait right here while you change your profile.

 

[Bradski]

If, indeed, it is impossible to prove a negative, that does seem to create a problem for atheism, no?

No. But I’m glad that you realise it can’t be done.

Atheism is, after all, the negative of theism. It is the claim that God does not exist – a negative claim that you say is impossible to prove.

If it was such a claim, then indeed it would be impossible to prove. Maybe you know some atheists who claim such. If you’d like to put me in touch with them I’d be more than grateful to explain our point of view on the matter.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. But I’m glad that you realise it can’t be done.

If it was such a claim, then indeed it would be impossible to prove. Maybe you know some atheists who claim such. If you’d like to put me in touch with them I’d be more than grateful to explain our point of view on the matter.

Oh, yes, I know. Atheists aren’t really “atheists,” they are agnostics who don’t like having credibility issues.

 

[Bradski]

Oh, yes, I know. Atheists aren’t really “atheists,” they are agnostics who don’t like having credibility issues.

I was going to say something along the lines of: ‘well, if you don’t know the difference…’.

But I know you do. So why you said that I’m not sure. Deflection?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Well, looks like we have found enough agreement to end that part of discussion.

Yes, I agree. And that is encouraging.

That also seems to be close enough to agreement.

Well, I have to disagree, and also admit that the seeming “close agreement” was completely MY FAULT. The example you brought up (no moderator comment of page 45) is not a “universal negative”. The form “all X are not Y” is inapplicable, because the qualifier “on page 45” makes it specific. With the qualifier it became “some X are not Y”. You see, it is easy to “prove” that “there is no atomic bomb explosion right now in this room” - precisely because it is a specific instance. On the other hand to prove that “there are no atomic bomb explosions anywhere and anytime” would be a “universal negative”, and as such it could not be “proven”. I hope that this correction will be sufficient to have a true agreement.

Not to mention that (if I remember correctly) the poster who “provoked” this part of discussion might have meant “proof” in the sense closer to the one used in Law (“proof beyond reasonable doubt” and the like)…

It is possible, but since we are on a philosophy forum, and not a legal one, it is not a good idea to use the legal definition. Though sometimes it is hard to avoid to drag several disciplines into a conversation.

Now if only we could come to an agreement that “philosophy” is not an epistemological method, then it would really be great. In such case we could explore the alleged “alternate” epistemological method, which does not rely on the verification / falsification principle.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Atheism is, after all, the negative of theism. It is the claim that God does not exist – a negative claim that you say is impossible to prove.

I really wish that the moratorium about discussing atheism would be lifted, because it might help to get rid of such incorrect statements. But maybe the moderators will not close this thread for such a minor derailment. Atheism is NOT a claim that God does not exist, it is a claim that the atheist “does not believe in God”.

Therefore, atheism would be the most irrational of the three options – theism, agnosticism or atheism – since it alone would be impossible to prove.

And if the topic of atheism would be allowed again, then you could learn that “agnosticism” is not a “third option”. Theism and atheism are metaphysical concepts (the belief that a god or some gods exist - theism and the lack of belief that a god or some gods exist - atheism). Gnosticism and agnosticism is an **epistemological **terms, they deal with “knowledge”. Huxley made a terrible mistake when he coined this term.

Of course you are right that “atheism” cannot be proven, while theism could be proven. However the **possibility **of something amenable to “proof” does not make it rational. The existence of the proof would, but the possibility of such proof does not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Atheism is NOT a claim that God does not exist, it is a claim that the atheist “does not believe in God”.

And if the topic of atheism would be allowed again, then you could learn that “agnosticism” is not a “third option”. Theism and atheism are metaphysical concepts (the belief that a god or some gods exist - theism and the lack of belief that a god or some gods exist - atheism). Gnosticism and agnosticism is an **epistemological **terms, they deal with “knowledge”. Huxley made a terrible mistake when he coined this term.

Since atheism is not an epistemological term, it appears that rocks and trees, the toenail on my big foot, the lint in my pocket, the algae slime floating in my pond and my cat (as far as I can tell) are all atheists since these all "lack a belief in God;” not least of all because they lack any beliefs whatsoever.

Congratulations on sharing your “lack of belief” with such an illustrious company of “thinkers!” Defining your position in such a manner certainly opens it to being the default position of all inorganic compounds, and all non-sentient and sentient life forms which universally share your lack of belief by virtue of the fact they, too, “lack” any beliefs whatsoever. Very egalitarian of you, Hee_Zen, to allow the possibility of such an inclusive POV!

I am certain Bradski will be happy to hear that the impossibility of proving atheism is no longer a problem BECAUSE it need not be proven at all. Who in their right mind would even attempt to argue a rock out of its lack of belief, in any case?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Since atheism is not an epistemological term, it appears that rocks and trees, the toenail on my big foot, the lint in my pocket, the algae slime floating in my pond and my cat (as far as I can tell) are all atheists since these all "lack a belief in God;” not least of all because they lack any beliefs whatsoever.

To have a belief presupposes the ability to think in the first place. Except for the cat, none of the other ones you mentioned have the ability to think at all, so they cannot be characterized based upon “thinking and believing”. And the cat does not seem to be able to conceptualize such an abstract concept as a god. So much for your list. But as soon as some mutant cat will be able to conceptualize, and have a belief system, then the lack of belief will place him into the “atheist” camp, or if it will express a belief in god, it would be properly labeled as a “theist”. And I will have no objection to share company with a cat which can think in an abstract fashion.

 

[Bradski]

Indeed. To be able to say that you do not have a belief in any particular concept, you have to understand the concept in the first instance.

But, again, Peter knew this anyway.

 

[Gorgias]

Atheism is NOT a claim that God does not exist, it is a claim that the atheist “does not believe in God”.

I see. So, then… it’s a ‘belief system’, and as such, concerns itself with ‘faith’ rather than with ‘logic’? Glad you cleared that up for us…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Since atheism is not an epistemological term, it appears that rocks and trees, the toenail on my big foot, the lint in my pocket, the algae slime floating in my pond and my cat (as far as I can tell) are all atheists since these all "lack a belief in God;” not least of all because they lack any beliefs whatsoever.

The -ist suffix denotes a person.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If, indeed, it is impossible to prove a negative, that does seem to create a problem for atheism, no?

Atheism is, after all, the negative of theism. It is the claim that God does not exist – a negative claim that you say is impossible to prove.

For what it’s worth some do make the claim that God doesn’t exists. There are several subcategories and not all of them make this claim.

• **Strong Atheist **- makes the claim there are no Gods
• Agnostic Atheist - One that isn’t convinced of the existence of Gods
• Apatheist - One that doesn’t really care either way
• Ignostic - such a person finds most descriptions of gods unintelligible

 

[Hee_Zen]

I see. So, then… it’s a ‘belief system’, and as such, concerns itself with ‘faith’ rather than with ‘logic’? Glad you cleared that up for us…

Just like being **bald **is a “hairstyle”… I am glad I was able to help.

 

[Gorgias]

Just like being **bald **is a “hairstyle”… I am glad I was able to help.

Ah, but you contradict yourself. Being bald (as opposed to shaving oneself bald, of course) is a claim that ‘hair doesn’t exist’, not a claim that one ‘doesn’t believe that hair exists’. So, which is it: “God doesn’t exist”, or “atheists don’t belief that God exists”? Or is it that you prefer to vacillate between the two claims, whenever it’s convenient?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Just like being **bald **is a “hairstyle”… I am glad I was able to help.

Take it up with Bradski.

He is the one who claimed negative beliefs are impossible to prove, Ergo, atheism is impossible to prove and atheists define yourselves by holding an impossible to prove negative belief. You are the ones who call your lack of hair, a hairstyle.

Bradski, I am sure, is beholding to you for your help.