tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post7624724632435057141..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Are We Proving the Negative Yet?Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-38786884290833480112012-12-29T07:17:27.733-08:002012-12-29T07:17:27.733-08:00Ron, I don't know if you're following rema...Ron, I don't know if you're following remarks here but: Thanks for all your thoughts about many of my posts. In general, your approach to the question sounds more like "How can I defend theism/Christianity and answer objections?" than "What is the most reasonable view, overall, to take about the God question?" But usually people don't respond positively or take it constructively when that is suggested. Perhaps you'll consider the points in these two posts: <br /><br />http://www.provingthenegative.com/2011/08/defense-lawyers-for-jesus.html<br /><br />And <br /><br />http://www.provingthenegative.com/2011/02/defeasibility-test.html<br /><br />The defeasibility test is perhaps the single most important preliminary and fundamental question to any discussions about God. <br /><br />Again, thanks for taking the time to read and respond to many of my posts. Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-9368409921096088552012-12-28T12:07:13.711-08:002012-12-28T12:07:13.711-08:00Proving a negative is not impossible, but it is ve...Proving a negative is not impossible, but it is very difficult. And no, you haven't gotten there yet. <br /><br />Still, I like you. I especially like the fact you are working so hard on a project many others have pursued and failed and yet you are undaunted. It shows you have real determination. And you are obviously an intelligent man. You have not been lazy at the books. All of that is very commendable.<br /><br />I come to the subject from a different point of view. I'm a Christian... perhaps a different type of Christian than you have come across before. While I believe the Bible is literally true (with figures of speech, of course), I do not believe in a young universe or a young earth. Many of my Christian friends hold to a view called theistic evolution or BioLogos. I have some problems with certain aspects of the science of theistic evolution but applaud the efforts being made. <br /><br />I have made a few substantial comments on the post "Know your godless heathens" pointing out the errors in some of the "incompatible properties arguments" put forward by Drange. You might want to look at those.<br /><br />I have not yet had a chance to read your book but am guessing you interact with Lee Strobel's evidence some since your title includes the words "the case against Christ." Have you, by chance, interacted with any of the pro-theist arguments put forward by CS Lewis, Anthony Flew, Alister McGrath, Hugh Ross, Francis Collins or Allan Sandage? If so, I would love to read them if you can point me in the right direction. <br /><br />Best wishes to you. <br /><br />Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-10610664447425096912010-03-12T12:12:55.185-08:002010-03-12T12:12:55.185-08:00@paulv
after how many different atheistic world vi...@paulv<br /><i>after how many different atheistic world views have been abandoned, can we say with confidence that god exists</i><br /><br />I wish someone would be able to tell me what an atheistic world view is, because I simply do not get what that means when theists say that. There is nothing that my non-belief in a god influences, so it cannot be a world view. It is in fact a conclusion of my world view, which is... hum, I have no idea! Naturalist maybe? Humanist? Rationalist? I don't know honestly...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-9716427635333366942010-03-12T12:09:30.799-08:002010-03-12T12:09:30.799-08:00@paulv
To accept the argument that 500 dead gods m...@paulv<br /><i>To accept the argument that 500 dead gods makes no god more likely, is to argue that an analysis of guesses about what is inside a sealed container, can tell us the likelihood that the container is empty.</i><br /><br />Well if you want to make an analogy with a sealed container you should put it this way to be honest:<br /><br />- You belive you know what's inside the sealed container that no one has ever opened<br /><br />- I tell you I don't know what's in it<br /><br />- You say it must be 'X', and claim that saying it's 'X' is better than saying I don't know<br /><br />- I tell you no, because 'X' could not fit in the sealed container, just like all other 'Xs' that were proposed before, for different reasons.<br /><br />- You say that it's not impossible for another 'X' that we know nothing about, yet, to exist in the sealed jar.<br /><br />- I reply: OK, if you say so... I simply do not see any reason to believe you.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55907293677825431922010-03-12T12:02:15.394-08:002010-03-12T12:02:15.394-08:00@paulv
Concerning theories; I think we agree that...@paulv<br /><br />Concerning theories; I think we agree that we keep revising our understanding of the world, so it is correct to say that the current theories will be overridden at some point in the future. However, you seem to make it sounds as if the new theories completely anahilate previous ones; which is rarely the case.<br /><br />Let's look at two examples. First your atomic model theory. I remember from when I was a kid, we were presented with these models where electrons where placed on fixed orbits around an atom, just like miniature solar systems. That's more or less Bohr's theory if I am not mistaken. Now, I am not expert at all, but from interesting articles or documentaries I have seen, quantum mechanics now tells us that electrons act in strange ways, and can be described using complex probabilistic equations. But it turns out that these equations, confirmed by observations, show that the electrons still tend to align on the orbits proposed by Bohr.<br /><br />Second example, take gravity. Newton told us how massive objects interact with each other, and since then we have been able to compute precise trajectories using his equations. Heck we even went to the moon using this knowledge! But Newton was "wrong". Knowledge of relativity showed us that gravity is more complex than just a force pulling us toward the Earth.<br /><br />In both cases however, the new theory did not overturned the previous ones completely, and it could never be so, because the facts remain the same. What we realize is that our facts and theories were correct, but approximate only.<br /><br />So, what about God theories now? Well it's not the same at all! Because God theories don't tell us anything about God. What they do tell us is that, based on some "facts", the conclusion is that God did it. There are no theories that look at God and then explain how God does something, because we do not observe God at all, we "observe" its consequences.<br /><br />With God, it's the complete opposite of science. It's basically as if Newton had said : "I know that there is this force called Gravity, and I shall prove to you why it is the case". No, that's not how scientific theories work. Newton looked at the facts, i.e. objects fall..., celestial objects move around each others... and then proposed an explanation as to why the objects are falling/moving. He gave that explanation a name, a label, and called it Gravity. (perhaps it was not him at all who labelled gravity, I am just giving general ideas on how I view all this...)<br /><br />So, in short, there are no God theories, because God is a concept that humans invented to explain other things. Therefore no matter what you were trying to justify here is bogus. Your God is a conclusion, a theory itself, not an observable fact.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84164745566525778962010-03-12T10:49:11.253-08:002010-03-12T10:49:11.253-08:00To accept the argument that 500 dead gods makes no...To accept the argument that 500 dead gods makes no god more likely, is to argue that an analysis of guesses about what is inside a sealed container, can tell us the likelihood that the container is empty.<br /><br />No number of abandoned guesses, can ever influence the actual container.<br /><br />Of, after how many different atheistic world views have been abandoned, can we say with confidence that god exists.paulvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-57217316105654044122010-03-11T12:17:45.106-08:002010-03-11T12:17:45.106-08:00Presumably there are an infinite number of wrong t...Presumably there are an infinite number of wrong theories for every scientific phenomena. So the odds of the current theory being correct are rather small. I think it is correct to conclude that each theory we now hold is not the true theory. <br /><br />But because it isn't a the "true" theory, does not mean it cannot be considered a better theory than the previous ones. and any new (and possiblly true) theories will likely incorporate some aspects of the old ones, as well as transcend them in unpredictable ways.<br /><br />In the case of god, can we assume that the new (and possibly true) ideas of god won't inccorporate some of the past notions, as well as transcend them in some ways.<br /><br />We can quite easily reject Rutherford's theory of the atom, as well as Bohrs etc, without rejecting the idea that a truer theory exists. We can believe that no true theory exists, but Bohr's incomplete theory has no bearing on the odds of whether a true theory exitspaulvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-15961530562165445922010-03-10T19:16:46.352-08:002010-03-10T19:16:46.352-08:00@CS
lol, good point, I don't know what's ...@CS<br /><br />lol, good point, I don't know what's in your head.<br />Let me clarify with a few questions...<br />Do you believe in Zeus?<br />Do you believe in Apolo?<br />Do you believe in the FSM?<br />...<br />How long did it take you to judge the probability of these gods to exist in reality?<br />Probably as long as myself...<br /><br />I don't understand what you mean by partisan with regard to my comment... basically my answer was 'yes'.<br />(in reply to <i>do we require the question of God to be dealt with a higher standard</i>)World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6301134385478125652010-03-10T18:29:30.003-08:002010-03-10T18:29:30.003-08:00Hugo,
I cannot fathom how you would know how much...Hugo,<br /><br />I cannot fathom how you would know how much time I spend making judgments. Are you that little man in my head?<br /><br />Everything else you said seems pretty partisan<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-90662440213285369542010-03-09T18:01:49.929-08:002010-03-09T18:01:49.929-08:00@CS
"...shall we treat the existence of God ...@CS<br /><br />"<i>...shall we treat the existence of God with the same level we do with convenient and quick judgments in hospital rooms or court rooms ? Or do we require the question of God to be dealt with a higher standard, one that is academic and philosophical?<br /></i>"<br /><br />Personally I judge most of the gods much more quickly than triage at an hospital... and that's what YOU do too!<br /><br />Does the general idea of a supernatural deity require a higher standard? Yes, of course, did you even read the blog post you are commenting on...? I think Matt did a fairly good job at explaining why Atheists reject the supernatural, and his explanations could hardly be any shorter!World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77964694877621882592010-03-09T15:43:44.089-08:002010-03-09T15:43:44.089-08:00Paulv said:
"Triage is a rational choice whe...Paulv said:<br /><br />"Triage is a rational choice when faced with a flood of patents, or of patients. Using a quick criteria to eliminate the number to a workable size is a valid solution to a manpower shortage or otherwise limited resources. I don't think it is a valid solution when thinking about fundamental problems, unless we are being deluged with claims of new gods say at this time"<br /><br /><br />This is a very good analogy and as I take it hints at what may be taking place with the appeal of atheist trying to convince us that proving the negative in relation to God is ok. However, the question of God seems to be a philosophical issue and not one of practice like a triage or court room.<br /><br />So, to the atheist on here, shall we treat the existence of God with the same level we do with convenient and quick judgments in hospital rooms or court rooms ? Or do we require the question of God to be dealt with a higher standard, one that is academic and philosophical?<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-79468871385818416432010-03-08T08:46:20.061-08:002010-03-08T08:46:20.061-08:00@paulv
There is a difference between wishing for s...@paulv<br /><i>There is a difference between wishing for something, and believing something is true.</i><br /><br />Well, that's basically what I was trying to tell you. It's plain weird that you now write this as if you were the one trying to convince me... Can I quote myself?<br /><br />"You went back to the idea of belief in the future, like positive thinking, having inspiration, optimism, etc... this has NOTHING to do with believing something to be true or not."<br /><br />You then went on and mentioned that <i>We can never prove anything by induction</i> so I feel like you are trying to get into a profound philosophical discussion here; since basically we use induction to prove most of what we believe, and that's perfectly fine. Of course it's not absolute truth as we can derive from math; but very few things are.<br />Anyway, I have no interest in discussing that over here in a comment section of a blog... visit <a href="http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/</a> for that!World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-8953122926766046812010-03-07T10:15:12.002-08:002010-03-07T10:15:12.002-08:00Respectfully, I disagree. There is a difference b...Respectfully, I disagree. There is a difference between wishing for something, and believing something is true. I wish I would win the lottery, but I don't believe I ever will.<br /><br /> You question whether I know the various meanings of the word faith. I can only state that I use it as in Wikepedia "Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true"<br /><br />As such religious faith is not testably different from other beliefs.<br /><br />We can never prove anything by induction, at some point we may decide to believe it to be true, or act as if it is true. We may call this a reasonable leap, because we judge it to be the most or a more likely hypothesis, but it remains a leap of faith. No leap of logic can be so small that there is no risk of undoing the finest proof. <br /><br />The topic is how we deal with claims of perpetual motion, or rather by that analogy that people should reject arguments for gods like the patent office at one time treated applications related to perpetual motion machines.<br /><br />But I can't help wondering if the determination, enthusiasm, faith that these losers had for their inventions, can really be distinguished from the determination, enthusiasm, and faith that Kepler and Copernicus and others had before finally being able to prove their ideas. Arthur Koestler ("Sleepwalkers") amoung others doesn't distinguish any differences. There are many documented cases where scientists persisted in their belief about a new theory, in spite of much evidence to the contrary. Ultimately some were proven right, but many times not. So it is perhaps better that we are capable of great faith, in spite of the obvious cost in certain situations. Do scientists make guesses about what happenned at the big bang. I think the consensus is that they do, and then they try to see if these guesses result in any testable predictions. Rather than ignoring things that run counter to current theory, they look for things current cannot explain. Patent offices don't deal with scientists though. But our capacity for great faith, and delusion exists so if there is no god who gave it to us, then it is likely (in my opinion) that it has been benefiicial in the past, and likely will be again<br /><br />Triage is a rational choice when faced with a flood of patents, or of patients. Using a quick criteria to eliminate the number to a workable size is a valid solution to a manpower shortage or otherwise limited resources. I don't think it is a valid solution when thinking about fundamental problems, unless we are being deluged with claims of new gods say at this time.<br /><br />Certainly when fighting against a bad thing that some people fervently believe, it is tempting to want to fault their faith in it, or try to eliminate faith in general. But to discredit all faith on that count, is no more logical than assuming that the bad actions of one jew is a compelling reason to eliminate all jews. If faith is bad, then every instance of faith should be bad, and any one instance of good faith should be enough to put the theory of bad faith to bed. That doesn't mean we should praise people for believing things that are demonstrably false, but I cannot fault them for believing that new and strange things are yet to be discovered that will surprise even the patent office, after all we've been surprised in the past. Nor can I fault them for concluding that we are now all out of important surprises.paulvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-79358808611368342032010-03-06T06:53:48.497-08:002010-03-06T06:53:48.497-08:00@paulv
You went back to the idea of belief in the...@paulv<br /><br />You went back to the idea of belief in the future, like positive thinking, having inspiration, optimism, etc... this has NOTHING to do with believing something to be true or not.<br /><br />- Do you believe the Earth is round? Yes. Do you believe this because you have faith? No. You have good reasons, evidence, to support to belief. That belief is justified, rational, and common.<br /><br />- Do you believe that a person who weight 150kg can lose wait if that person puts the effort into it? Yes. Do you believe this because you have faith? No. That's not faith, that's optimism, clearly not "faith" in the same sense as having faith that a supernatural god exists.<br /><br />- Do you know what caused the Big Bang? No. Do I? No. Do I make a guess? No. Do you? I think yes you do. You think there must be a god behind all this. Do you have proof? No. You have faith. You accept this idea that a god exists on faith, for whatever reasons suits you, perhaps it makes you feel good, perhaps others around you believe it too, perhaps you had personal experiences, perhaps you believe that historical accounts of miracles are sufficient to believe.<br /><br />You really don't understand the various meanings the word faith can take or what???World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-12758115230073858352010-03-06T05:54:38.315-08:002010-03-06T05:54:38.315-08:00Hugo, all I said was that on average, believing ca...Hugo, all I said was that on average, believing can be better than inaction, for questions that cannot be answered directly.<br /><br />Belief, even when wrong, is more likely to inspire action than the absence of belief.<br /><br />Given a population of people, some will believe they can make it as actors, the rest don't. Now some who believe they can, can't and waste their life trying, but also some who don't believe, don't try and miss out on a real possibility.<br /><br />For the society as a whole, it is better to have some visionaries who believe in their vision (even when it appears unreasonable in the current paradigm) then to have only people who reject all visions that don't seem reasonable. Yes will waste time on stupid visions, but the alternative is I think worse.paulvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61044890352303580652010-03-05T14:22:11.188-08:002010-03-05T14:22:11.188-08:00@paulv
I hope I have misunsertood you beacuse fro...@paulv<br /><br />I hope I have misunsertood you beacuse from what you just wrote, it appears that, for you, it's better to give an answer, any answer whatsovere, no matter how ridiculous that answer can be, than replying "I don't know".<br /><br />Please correct me; or seriously think about what you consider good justifications for believing something.<br /><br />Concerning your athlete example; you're out of the scope of the issue here. That's not the same 'faith' at all. What we are discussing here are beliefs, not wishes for the future. Words can have more than one meaning or be used in one than more context you know ;) (I know you know, just kidding...)World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-68452795253790003372010-03-05T09:18:59.876-08:002010-03-05T09:18:59.876-08:00Thanks for your ideas, PaulV. I've written ab...Thanks for your ideas, PaulV. I've written about faith a lot on this blog and I have presented a number of really substantial problems with resorting to that to vindicate God belief. Here's one of the recent ones. Also do a search on the blog for faith. <br />http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-floodgates.html<br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6858631409854007872010-03-05T08:32:10.026-08:002010-03-05T08:32:10.026-08:00I don't think having faith is necessarily the ...I don't think having faith is necessarily the same as not caring, rather it can be a realization that some answers are not currently, and may never be known. When faced with these kinds of questions belief is on average a better choice than inaction.<br />Its why we tell young athletes and actors to believe they can succeed.<br />They may never know otherwise, if they have what it takes.paulvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27290494246516000272010-03-05T06:35:45.398-08:002010-03-05T06:35:45.398-08:00"Faith is never a good thing" in your op...<i>"Faith is never a good thing" in your opinion. Is this something that has been proved, or just something you believe. And if so, is your belief in it a good thing.<br /><br />My examination of historical instances, has shown that faith can have good, bad or no real consequences, depending on the occasion.</i><br /><br />I was not talking about the consequences of having faith in something, as it's obvious that it can lead someone to do both good or bad things. The point is that it's never right, never correct, as it's never proven, by definition. Therefore, it could be true, or could be false, but when you have faith you don't care, and that's what I find "not good". This attitude of believing things to be true without evidence, faith, even if it leads to good thing, is never, itself, a good thing.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-10262785663256434372010-03-05T04:51:24.769-08:002010-03-05T04:51:24.769-08:00"Faith is never a good thing" in your op..."Faith is never a good thing" in your opinion. Is this something that has been proved, or just something you believe. And if so, is your belief in it a good thing.<br /><br />My examination of historical instances, has shown that faith can have good, bad or no real consequences, depending on the occasion. I believe, that like aggression, the capacity for faith exists because it has been very useful in certain situations. Why else would it exist?<br /><br />While I perfer BJ's response, mine could have been clearer if I mentionned Godel's theorem, which proved that a rational system cannot be both complete and self consistant. Ie. there is truth that rational systems cannot demonstrate, or any system cannot be justified from within itself.<br /><br />Wikepedia certainly states that resistance drops to zero when superconductivity is achieved. But whether it is truly zero, or just exponentially small is moot. If we can generate a current that can last longer than we expect the universe to last, then it qualifies as perpetual motion for me.<br /><br />Granted people are allowed to believe that perpetual motion is not possible, and may even have valid reasons for believing it, just as many believed that Maxwell's equations made the Bohr Atom impossible, but most now just believe that Maxwell's equations don't apply to quantum states of the atom in the same way as to macroscopic phenomena. Certainly the kind that violates the conservation of energy, we believe is not possilbe, because we have a greater belief in conservation of energy (except for the very short violations required for quantum mechanics to work correctly).paulvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-12819552547105840632010-03-03T09:29:34.504-08:002010-03-03T09:29:34.504-08:00@paulv
Review your knowledge of physics, a true p...@paulv<br /><br />Review your knowledge of physics, a true perpetual motion machines is, and will ever be, impossible.<br /><br />"we have discovered that at very low temperatures, friction and/or resistance can disappear"<br />is a lie;<br />What you could have said is that at temperature close to absolute zero (you know what that is right?) friction and/or resistance can 'almost' disappear.<br /><br />Plus, faith is never a good thing, IMO, and being rational has nothing to do with having faith in anything. People can have faith in some ridiculous things and still be rational concerning anything else, and vice versa, some people are extremely rational in some areas but will believe many many things based only on pure faith.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45702096412113309412010-03-03T08:45:27.669-08:002010-03-03T08:45:27.669-08:00With regards to perpetual motion machines, we have...With regards to perpetual motion machines, we have discovered that at very low temperatures, friction and/or resistance can disappear. And now the race is on to produce materials that exhibit this effect at not quite so cold temperatures.<br /><br />Should this work be abandonned, because so many previous stupid attempts at perpetual motion machines were failures? Should we abandon chemistry, because so much of alchemy was a complete fraud? I think the lesson here is that the attempt to build a complete and self consistant rational worldview has been demonstrated to be a pipe dream. Once you accept that your faith in rationality is a faith, then other irrational faiths may appear less threatening.paulvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-37091315152309252082010-02-26T05:14:12.518-08:002010-02-26T05:14:12.518-08:00"So what if someone comes back against this a..."So what if someone comes back against this argument and says that we should reject scientific hypotheses because so many of them have been wrong in the past? What should be the answer?"<br /><br />The reason we rejected scientific hypotheses in the past was because attempts to verify and validate the hypotheses by means of scientific method failed; we don't reject other hypotheses just because we rejected lots of others. We followed a process that itself has been tried and true.<br /><br />The corollary - equally wrong - would be to say that I reject your god because I have to date rejected all other gods. Rather, I reject your god because the process I used to reject all other gods led me to conclude that your god was false as well. <br /><br />Now, we could further the discussion along meaningfully if we then talk about whether the process I used is one that can reliable obtain true beliefs.BJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566871921754668721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-13873641194134581212010-02-01T13:49:38.809-08:002010-02-01T13:49:38.809-08:00"Hello, this is Opossum, I just wanted to say..."Hello, this is Opossum, I just wanted to say that you are awesome."<br /><br />KrissAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446845644368676537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-28876409276516108892010-01-20T16:29:46.515-08:002010-01-20T16:29:46.515-08:00Good job!!Good job!!World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com