Evidence

Homepage Forums Theism Evidence

This topic contains 39 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  PopeBeanie 4 days, 2 hours ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #28284

    _Robert_
    Participant

    In engineering we by convention phrase our requirements into positive “shalls” (as opposed to “shall nots”). The big issue is always defining the requirement or assertions correctly and completely. I have no doubt that a Boeing 737 Max meets all if it’s requirements as written. Yet there are serious issues. Some requirements were not complete or correct…but they were verified.

    To assert that no god exists we have to define god. We can’t do either.

    #28285

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Rule applies for the half you can’t see.

    LOL, took me a while to get that, bravo 😉

    #28289

    Davis
    Participant

    Re: the half picture ..am I missing something?

    #28290

    Unseen
    Participant

    You can prove a negative if your verification tests are 100% conclusive. That is not easy as Davis pointed out. If your couch was sitting on a zeroed-out scale and we assume a hyena has a minimum mass we could have pretty good certainty that there is no hyena on the couch. What if the hyena was a just a fertilized egg? Is our scale good enough? Is it even working? What if the couch and scale were in an accelerating elevator? Scale is off. So it depends on how much certainty you need.

    Oh, come on. Everyone knows what is actually meant by “There’s a hyena on my couch.”

    Wrong. You assumed we all think the same way. It could be a picture of a hyena. A plastic toy hyena under a cushion, you would be wrong. You are gonna have to redefine your problem very specifically before you can prove anything…negative or positive. If the power was out on a moonless night with no flashlights, I would love to see you prove there was no hyena sitting there smelling you like a pork chop.

    What matters is what a sane, rational, colloquial speaker understands by “There is no hyena on my couch.” Who, for example, immediately assumes I’m denying the existence of a toy hyena under a pillow, for example or that I’m making that statement from a pitch black room?

    #28291

    Davis
    Participant

    Unseen you aren’t making an argument, you are just moaning that it is unfair to introduce fantastical or unknown possibilities to certainty of negation. Using “sane” or “rational” makes no difference. You could be being decieved. You could be a bloody simulation on someones computer and there actually is a hayena you are blocked from seeing. These are possibilities you cannot discount just because you don’t like them or emotionally feed convinced “just couldn’t be”. And we are only talking here about an animal in a room. When we get into larger concepts we have absolutely no acces to (lots cosmic concepts, cosmic beings, the structure of the universe etc) we have absolutely ZERO access to a complete enough picture to make a confident negation (could we ever?). It’s one thing to not take a claim seriously because it’s preposterous, it’s something else to claim certainty when we are ignorant creatures.

    You’re complaining that isn’t unreasonable to include the far-out within the category of absolute certainty. That is just whining. It isn’t making an argument. It’s willful beligerence what we are ignorant of due to discomfort of the unknown. I find that extremely unphilosophical and very lazy.

    #28292

    _Robert_
    Participant

    So many scientific discoveries have been pure accidents. The discovery often has little to do with the initial goals. It often takes the rare genius to see that outlier as a possibility and come up with a proof. The further outside of normal human understanding the bigger the discovery.

    The brute force method works too. Just try a bunch of stuff and see what happens. The Edison method, LOL.

    #28296

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen you aren’t making an argument, you are just moaning that it is unfair to introduce fantastical or unknown possibilities to certainty of negation. Using “sane” or “rational” makes no difference. You could be being decieved. You could be a bloody simulation on someones computer and there actually is a hayena you are blocked from seeing. These are possibilities you cannot discount just because you don’t like them or emotionally feed convinced “just couldn’t be”. And we are only talking here about an animal in a room. When we get into larger concepts we have absolutely no acces to (lots cosmic concepts, cosmic beings, the structure of the universe etc) we have absolutely ZERO access to a complete enough picture to make a confident negation (could we ever?). It’s one thing to not take a claim seriously because it’s preposterous, it’s something else to claim certainty when we are ignorant creatures. You’re complaining that isn’t unreasonable to include the far-out within the category of absolute certainty. That is just whining. It isn’t making an argument. It’s willful beligerence what we are ignorant of due to discomfort of the unknown. I find that extremely unphilosophical and very lazy.

    Davis, if there is no car in my driveway, looking in my driveway apparently doesn’t settle the matter for you. Apparently, if you see a car, that’s a fact, if you don’t see a car, that isn’t. Right? Presence or absence both have to meet certain criteria, and simply because we have proven something to our satisfaction (99.99999%), that’s still not enough. Well, okay, what can be proven 100%, be it positive or negative, outside the conceptual realm of math and formal logic?

    “I see a car in your driveway, so there’s a car in your driveway” can’t be proven for the same reasons that you deny “I see no car in your driveway, so there can’t be a car in your driveway” can be proven. Apparently, no statement about the everyday world of the senses is subject to proof.

    However, we take things as proven all the time. In that sense, proof alone isn’t infallible. I may think I have milk in the refrigerator because I’ve been seeing the milk container there the last couple days, but when I go to pour some milk, I find the container is, in fact, empty. For me, the absence of milk in the container proves that it is empty.

    So, are we talking about formal proof vs. practical proof? Well, I don’t use formal proof very much in everyday life to get through a typical day. Do you?

     

    • This reply was modified 5 days, 5 hours ago by  Unseen.
    #28298

    Unseen
    Participant

    Davis, it seems to me that using your standard, science can prove very little, if anything, can it?

    #28301

    Unseen
    Participant

    If “proof” has to satisfy Descartes’ Evil Genius, nothing can be proven. Not even in math and logic.

    #28308

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    (no clue what’s happened to my formatting, but it is indeed evidence of the fact that I have a new iPad and have yet to learn how to use it!)

    This is a common occurance, when users respond to a post without adding a blank line and then clicking off the quote button before typing their response. I think the design should be improved so that users shouldn’t have to close off the quote themselves. And/or sometimes there’s another confusing quirk that happens during copy/paste. I don’t think it’s an Apple or iPad problem. It’s looks interesting in this case, anyway, not bad. 🙂

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.