tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post3767011758263406724..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Proving Atheism and Bayes’ TheoremMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-39717651208428591262009-07-19T04:25:00.157-07:002009-07-19T04:25:00.157-07:00最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセ...最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセージが多数書き込みされています。彼女たちはお金がないので掲示板で知り合った男性の家にでもすぐに泊まりに行くようです。あなたも書き込みに返事を返してみませんか家出http://ruby.iwatukisan.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-72700874148369927182009-07-17T08:01:53.446-07:002009-07-17T08:01:53.446-07:00最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.07...最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.0720@docomo.ne.jp 連絡待ってるよ☆メル友募集noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78016172484627502862009-07-06T06:50:03.921-07:002009-07-06T06:50:03.921-07:00みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあ...みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあの子も実は精神年齢オバサンということも…合コンや話のネタに一度チャレンジしてみよう精神年齢http://new.haaaasagasou.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-42955998768436004552009-07-04T05:38:07.537-07:002009-07-04T05:38:07.537-07:00さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆...さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆円助交際』を提供します。逆円交際を未経験の方でも気軽に遊べる大人のマッチングシステムです。年齢上限・容姿・経験一切問いません。男性の方は無料で登録して頂けます。貴方も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか逆円助http://new.googlejuku-navi.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-76053516296599540042009-04-29T23:27:00.000-07:002009-04-29T23:27:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11873520106721361130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-69511363111449843022009-03-27T04:58:00.000-07:002009-03-27T04:58:00.000-07:00Tully and Poe,I am just trying to help you save fa...Tully and Poe,<BR/><BR/>I am just trying to help you save face. i presume you are a phil student at the school of matt the professor? Your peers may or may not be watching but the things you say are highly pretenious to say the least. If you do not understand something then dont respond. Don't assume I am some ignorant theist. I may or may not have studied philosophy but to assume either is unfounded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-44806222090325640852009-03-27T04:52:00.000-07:002009-03-27T04:52:00.000-07:00tully,"I can imagine a gravity defying lead brick....tully,<BR/><BR/>"I can imagine a gravity defying lead brick.<BR/><BR/>You demonstrate its existence and I'll take you seriously. Until then, go read "The Secret." Its epistemology is every bit as valid as yours. That is to say, not at all."<BR/><BR/>This is proof Plato's beard is over your head. All you ahd to do is ask a philosophy professor. When you refer to batman you make an ontolgical commitment to that entity, negating or affirming. "There is no batman" seems to have no subject matter but only a referent if you think he does not exists. But you cannot refer to nothing and still claim to have meaningful conversation...<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Anon, its about possibilities and probabilities. If you accept something simply because its not linguistically impossible, you must accept all things that are not linguistically impossible. Otherwise you are either being logically inconsistent or intellectually dishonest."<BR/><BR/>This paragraph really doesnt make sense. but if you're talking about what you have previously argued i.e. that If I cannot negate entities that I must believe in them then you are misinformed. A person can be undecided about an entities existence. Surely, your belief set doesnt have all T's and F's!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83214720429960355882009-03-25T19:47:00.000-07:002009-03-25T19:47:00.000-07:00Anon, you really are a Poe! "I hope you are not a ...Anon, you really are a Poe! <BR/><BR/>"I hope you are not a Phil student. You continue to reply with a partisan nature that is antithetical of a Phil student."<BR/><BR/>You were the one who stated: <BR/><BR/>"This may be way over your head" <BR/><BR/>And "Your post is convoluted and full of philosophical jargon that I do not think you fully understand" <BR/><BR/>And "Tully, You're embarrassing yourself here"<BR/><BR/>Hypocrisy much? <BR/><BR/>Hey, if your goal is to put your reasoning before a rational audience and see what comes of it, please continue. I really do mean please.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33220139044629502432009-03-25T19:33:00.000-07:002009-03-25T19:33:00.000-07:00Anon,Look, when you wrote, "You're embarrassing yo...Anon,<BR/><BR/>Look, when you wrote, "You're embarrassing yourself here. Its not just Plato who proposed the dilemma of proving the existence of nonentities"<BR/><BR/>Here's the challenge:<BR/><BR/>I can imagine a gravity defying lead brick.<BR/><BR/>You demonstrate its existence and I'll take you seriously. Until then, go read "The Secret." Its epistemology is every bit as valid as yours. That is to say, not at all.<BR/><BR/>Anon, its about possibilities and probabilities. If you accept something simply because its not linguistically impossible, you must accept all things that are not linguistically impossible. Otherwise you are either being logically inconsistent or intellectually dishonest.<BR/><BR/>Which are you Anon?<BR/><BR/>Please continue.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32022913509784574812009-03-25T18:08:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:08:00.000-07:00reginald,Perhaps you can explain to Mr. tully what...reginald,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you can explain to Mr. tully what I am getting at? He doesnt seem to be considering Plato's beard...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81212669283034993152009-03-25T18:06:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:06:00.000-07:00Tully,You're embarrassing yourself here. Its not j...Tully,<BR/><BR/>You're embarrassing yourself here. Its not just Plato who proposed the dilemma of proving the existence of nonentities - its been a philosophical problem for thousands of years. Quine worked extensive on trying to get rid of the problem of meaning talk about such things as "unicorns" etc. Clearly, you have no idea what I am talking about and I hope you are not a Phil student. You continue to reply with a partisan nature that is antithetical of a Phil student.<BR/><BR/>Also, you don't seem to understand logic that well. if I cannot disprove an entity then how must I believe in it? That is what you are suggesting with your list of Gods. Every heard of many valued logic? Its a type of logic that gives way to agnostic views, which are deemed with an "I' truth value.<BR/><BR/>Brush up on your critical thinking skills kid and drop the act...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-90452322038155557822009-03-24T10:54:00.000-07:002009-03-24T10:54:00.000-07:00This may be way over your head. You need to think ...<I>This may be way over your head. You need to think about what's going on when we assert the existence of non-entities...</I><BR/><BR/>Play nice, or we'll tell your mommy that you've been using the computer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-51985478882799122192009-03-23T21:07:00.000-07:002009-03-23T21:07:00.000-07:00"I didnt just make this up. Its been a philosophic..."I didnt just make this up. Its been a philosophical problem in metaphysics as far back as Plato, even with eastern sages."<BR/><BR/>So, Plato could justify the gravity defying lead bricks?<BR/><BR/>No Anon, I think it is you that may be in over your head. You see yours (and Plato's for that matter) line of reasoning is categorized as ethnocentric.<BR/><BR/>If I apply it universally, I must also accept the existence of Marduk, Ra, Baal, Zeus, Athena, Thor, Vishnu, and the great God of the volcano.<BR/><BR/>My goodness. With all that worshiping and sacrificing how will I ever earn a living?<BR/><BR/>Just because you happened to born in a certain geography and during a certain era doesn't give your claims any special position. To assume it does would certainly be a case of time-space bigotry. <BR/><BR/>There is a reason that you can't find any Platonists or even neo-Platonists around any more. They were believers in hypotheses that were tested against the evidence, and found wanting (how do you like that, a biblical reference).<BR/><BR/>It's a canard Anon. It looks appealing at first, but when you put to the test of evidence it fails, miserably.<BR/><BR/>Of course, you could always start to erect temples to the hundreds of gods that people have claimed to have existed over written history. Can you put Athena's close to my house? The Goddess of Wisdom with soft-spot in her heart for men of the sea. Oh yeah, if I must act under Plato's (c. 400 BCE) understanding of the universe, I'm picking Athena.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3450872530998678882009-03-22T22:59:00.000-07:002009-03-22T22:59:00.000-07:00Tully,This may be way over your head. You need to ...Tully,<BR/><BR/>This may be way over your head. You need to think about what's going on when we assert the existence of non-entities i.e. God does not exist". There is both an affirmation of the subject at qeustion (its meaning) and the alignment of evidence used to relate to it. I didnt just make this up. Its been a philosophical problem in metaphysics as far back as Plato, even with eastern sages. SEE Plato dialouges "SOPHISTS".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-40446865348373900072009-03-22T20:53:00.000-07:002009-03-22T20:53:00.000-07:00"How can you folks establish a non-entity when any..."How can you folks establish a non-entity when any evidence you use will do the opposite? It will affirm the actual existence..."<BR/><BR/>So let me get this straight, if I state that, "Gravity defying lead bricks do not exist." I am actually making an argument for said bricks existence? <BR/><BR/>Good luck with that.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33361112694018572362009-03-22T20:17:00.000-07:002009-03-22T20:17:00.000-07:00I will try to refrase my challenge to atheist.How ...I will try to refrase my challenge to atheist.<BR/><BR/>How can you folks establish a non-entity when any evidence you use will do the opposite? It will affirm the actual existence...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2559926955018937662009-03-22T19:53:00.000-07:002009-03-22T19:53:00.000-07:00Reg,"You appear to be confusing the existence of a...Reg,<BR/><BR/>"You appear to be confusing the existence of an idea about something with existence of the actual something."<BR/><BR/>How can this even come into play if we havent first negated the entity? It is only then that we can say it is merely an idea. <BR/><BR/>Also, I do know the difference between a referent and its object. Do you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-67647811435921534962009-03-21T14:44:00.000-07:002009-03-21T14:44:00.000-07:00This statement is problematic since it attempts to...<I>This statement is problematic since it attempts to negate an entity that allegedly does not exist. But to do so requires to define the very entity that is being negated into existent. Thus you cannot negate the existence of an entity.</I><BR/><BR/>You appear to be confusing the existence of an idea about something with existence of the actual something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-59770963762192744002009-03-20T03:17:00.000-07:002009-03-20T03:17:00.000-07:00Matt,"But try to understand the broader, more ordi...Matt,<BR/><BR/>"But try to understand the broader, more ordinary sense of "proof" I am employing here. So if it has been proven to your satisfaction that Santa is not real, then it should be possible to expand the criteria of disproof that apply in those other cases to the God case."<BR/><BR/> I see where you are going but I always had a hunch that a broad sense of justification truly relies on some kind of appeal to a general consensus, perhaps a case of ad populum? I realize that many if not all people do not believe in a tooth fairy but is this belief really justified or is it taken for granted based on a common belief via societal convention? Shouldn't our belief values be labeled "I"(indeterminate) until there is some evidence to be weighed either way? <BR/><BR/>Also, expanding a disproof of Santa Claus to God is just not feasible. Those two entities aren't analogous at all. One is supernatural in the utmost sense while the other is quiet natural or shall we say tangible. We have a much clearer description of Santa clause's capacities. I can sit up all night and wait and watch for Santa Claus to fail to bring my presents - a case of observable evidence. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"But if the critic still insists on elevating the standard of proof for the atheist to absolute, deductive certainty--"The atheist isn't justified unless he possesses an a priori proof for the logical necessity of God's nonexistence," then I would direct the critic to a large literature in the philosophy journals, including some of my published articles, that allege to do exactly that."<BR/><BR/>I am not sure I need to go here to invalidate atheist having justification for God not existing (my agnosticism argument for atheist) .Also, I do not think atheist can show a deductive disproof of God either. Such an attempt hasn't been poplar among philosophers in history. Personally, I don’t think Modern philosophers are worth much and seem to be stuck regurgitating what their professors believe. They do seem to make good teachers though.<BR/><BR/>"The irony is that no reasonable theist today would claim that they possess a proof for God's existence that demonstrates his logical necessity."<BR/><BR/>Is this really true? Doesn’t a theist define God's necessity through their faith in him? There must be some propositions in your belief set that is true by definition? Perhaps that you can have beliefs? Yes, I know this sounds like Descartes but you got to start somewhere and with some proposition that is necessary.<BR/><BR/>I think this discussion has digressed. To interject another interesting challenge to atheist I'd like to present the problem of negating the existence of entities. Not that any evidence we have against false entities isn't evidence but that it cannot have the correct relation with that which is not....<BR/><BR/>Consider "Santa Claus dos not exist"<BR/><BR/>This statement is problematic since it attempts to negate an entity that allegedly does not exist. But to do so requires to define the very entity that is being negated into existent. Thus you cannot negate the existence of an entity. For atheist they must negate God. I believe this dilemma may be tied to the reason why atheist aren't justified in their disbelief of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-25897986626391460872009-03-20T02:15:00.000-07:002009-03-20T02:15:00.000-07:00Tully,I have no idea what you're trying to say. Yo...Tully,<BR/><BR/>I have no idea what you're trying to say. Your post is convoluted and full of philosophical jargon that I do not think you fully understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45934811060500563692009-03-20T02:12:00.000-07:002009-03-20T02:12:00.000-07:00Reginald,Yes, unteastable things would appear irre...Reginald,<BR/><BR/>Yes, unteastable things would appear irrelevant to the scientific realm but I am not sure if thats the same as the natural world. Perhaps. But if there is a supernatural world that is undetectable then isn't that potentially natural if we were to discover it? I think a perosn can believe that what we chose to call supernatural may in fact be actually part of the natural world. Damn the term "natural"...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-8054574747083201542009-03-19T21:43:00.000-07:002009-03-19T21:43:00.000-07:00Anon,To confuse a philosophical argument from a tr...Anon,<BR/><BR/>To confuse a philosophical argument from a true student of philosophy could be easily understood. To confuse a philosophical argument made by me? Well, that’s not going to give you to much credence anywhere.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “that God does not exist least they invoke the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium”. The argument from ignorance is summed up by, “You can’t explain this, therefore my explanation is correct” (i.e. you don’t know what came before the big bang, ergo god). My point was simply that I (along with the rest of the rational world) in our day-to-day lives require evidence to believe in the existence of any entity. I didn’t say because you can’t prove your entity existed, that implies some other entity must exist. <BR/><BR/>My argument would actually be classified as a Reductio ad absurdum. If you take your reasoning to its logical conclusions, you reach ridiculous results. Which you apparently do because you state, “You nor anybody else cannot have a justifiable position on invisible imps nor cloaked boogeyman.”<BR/><BR/>So your position is that it is quite justified for a person to change their behavior based on the possibility that invisible imps or cloaked boogeyman may exist.<BR/><BR/>Ad absurdum indeed. I’ll let a candid world judge for itself.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-8537529460625672962009-03-19T09:33:00.000-07:002009-03-19T09:33:00.000-07:00It would be a mistake to ratchet up the standards ...It would be a mistake to ratchet up the standards of proof for anyone who holds a view you disagree with and then claim to have refuted them because they cannot "prove" it. At the outset, I take it that many of us have reasonable, justified beliefs that fairies don't exist, there are no unicorns, and that Santa is not real. If we have reasonable, justified beliefs that those aren't real, then I think that it has probably been proven to your satisfaction that they are not real. Some people will disagree with me on this premise. But try to understand the broader, more ordinary sense of "proof" I am employing here. So if it has been proven to your satisfaction that Santa is not real, then it should be possible to expand the criteria of disproof that apply in those other cases to the God case. That is, we have a lot of good, reasonable grounds for concluding that Santa isn't real. In a broader sense, we have a lot of reasonable grounds for being suspicious about any supernatural claim. Not only has intercessory prayer been thoroughly investigated, but countless attempts to corroborate or find evidence for other paranormal, supernatural, spiritual entities have failed to produce anything compelling. At some point, we are justified in adopting a very strong skepticism about any new such claims that come up. The U.S. and British patent offices adopted a policy of refusing to consider any new patent applications for perpetual motion machines decades ago. I think this is reasonable, even though it remains logically possible that someone could build one. At this point, we have a lot of good evidence to justify adopting the view that religious claims about some invisible super being who lives in another dimension and who reads minds and grants wishes are most likely false. In fact, I think it would be irrational to be agnostic about such claims at this point. You'd be silly to argue for agnosticism about fairies too. <BR/><BR/>But if the critic still insists on elevating the standard of proof for the atheist to absolute, deductive certainty--"The atheist isn't justified unless he possesses an a priori proof for the logical necessity of God's nonexistence," then I would direct the critic to a large literature in the philosophy journals, including some of my published articles, that allege to do exactly that. <BR/><BR/>The application of this standard of proof is illegitimate, of course. If we adopt the standard that no belief is reasonable, or proven, or justified until it is supported by a logically necessary proof, then we must reject the vast majority of what we believe as unreasonable. Given that option, I reject the standard of proof as unreasonable. Descartes, famously, crashes and burns here for making the first choice. <BR/><BR/>The irony is that no reasonable theist today would claim that they possess a proof for God's existence that demonstrates his logical necessity. The very best philosophical theologians in the world acknowledge that this project has failed. So the critic either adopts a standard of proof that cuts equally across all believes, including their own theism, in order to undercut the atheist, or the critic must acknowledge that in a reasonable sense of "proof" the atheist has done his job. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81149914820101392972009-03-19T07:31:00.000-07:002009-03-19T07:31:00.000-07:00What kind of test are there for boogymen? Invisibl...<I>What kind of test are there for boogymen? Invisible imps? These entities seem to be beyond testable methods...</I><BR/><BR/>That depends on the claims made for them. Even most allegedly supernatural entities interact with the natural world, and thus the interactions should be testable.<BR/><BR/>Consider one alleged supernatural phenomenon which has been tested repeatedly: that intercessory prayer speeds healing or improves medical outcome for hospital patients. Even though the adressee(s) of the prayers are allegedly supernatural, the medical outcomes can, and have been, tested in controlled clinical trials with double-blind evaluation. The results of the larger, better-run studies is negative, except for a couple well-known cases of fraud. Fraud is not supernatural, and its existence is not in any way surprising.<BR/><BR/>So, the only way to get around testability for your boogeyman, or your god, is to claim that it does not interact in any way with the natural world. I.e. that it is impotent and useless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77304564708187086202009-03-19T07:08:00.000-07:002009-03-19T07:08:00.000-07:00I see, so it's a matter of testability.I see, so it's a matter of testability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com