Originally posted by dadudemon
Nor is any of the "evidence" that should convince me a Creator does not exist.It would appear we are at an impasse.
Edit - My favorite is when the atheists say, "Derp, testable qualities, derp, proof that version of God doesn't exist." As thought that was an original though that had not long since been addressed.
😂 You can't prove a negative, and you can't use that fact as evidence.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nor is any of the "evidence" that should convince me a Creator does not exist.It would appear we are at an impasse.
Edit - My favorite is when the atheists say, "Derp, testable qualities, derp, proof that version of God doesn't exist." As thought that was an original though that had not long since been addressed.
Hm. I think when I invoke such arguments, it's to establish what we can test, prove, or know, before moving on to other matters. I doubt many are saying it as though they're the first to arrive at it. But if something remains a strong rebuttal to arguments, it bears repeating. As it is, your words don't exactly debunk the use of falsifiability and the proven falsehood of many earthly gods. They don't even question them...you just poke fun at them in a mocking tone. This is not sufficient rebuttal to arguments that undermine your views. If you think your beliefs don't need to be falsifiable, we're indeed at an impasse. But you're retreating to blind faith. The position is unassailable, but you also have no explanatory power nor ability to claim that anyone else is wrong.
You can't prove a negative though, as Shakya said, while we're using philosophical cliches. Your first sentence in this post is asking for a logical impossibility.
Because that's the point. It's oxymoronic to ask for "evidence that God doesn't exist." It tautologically can't exist. The lack of evidence - any at all - means that our default position should be lack of belief, or non-belief if you like.
I'm sorry to be a broken record, but I need to ask for some evidence of your claim. Because as long as we're stooping to near-insults of the others' worldview, the only "derp" I see here is your response to the challenge to produce evidence. "Derp everything lol!" I find it hard to believe you truly find that sufficient logical backing, or that we should simply understand and accept your justification for belief when you don't elaborate on a comically vague premise.
Originally posted by Digi
Hm. I think when I invoke such arguments, it's to establish what we can test, prove, or know, before moving on to other matters. I doubt many are saying it as though they're the first to arrive at it. But if something remains a strong rebuttal to arguments, it bears repeating. As it is, your words don't exactly debunk the use of falsifiability and the proven falsehood of many earthly gods. They don't even question them...you just poke fun at them in a mocking tone. This is not sufficient rebuttal to arguments that undermine your views. If you think your beliefs don't need to be falsifiable, you're retreating to blind faith. The position is unassailable, but you also have no explanatory power nor ability to claim that anyone else is wrong.You can't prove a negative though, as Shakya said, while we're using philosophical cliches. Your first sentence in this post is asking for a logical impossibility.
Because that's the point. It's oxymoronic to ask for "evidence that God doesn't exist." It tautologically can't exist. The lack of evidence - any at all - means that our default position should be lack of belief, or non-belief if you like.
I'm sorry to be a broken record, but I need to ask for some evidence of your claim. Because as long as we're stooping to near-insults of the others' worldview, the only "derp" I see here is your response to the challenge to produce evidence. "Derp everything lol!" I find it hard to believe you truly find that sufficient logical backing, or that we should simply understand and accept your justification for belief when you don't elaborate on a comically vague premise.
See, this is why it gets muddy. You want an argument but none exists.
Look: "The universe will produce life if there is a God: check. Damn, god is real. That was a testable theory for my postulated God."
And so forth.
Remember when King Kandy left the forums? It was because he was stuck in an infinite argument loop with me because he was/is a staunch "fallibility" person.
The problem with getting antsy or pedantic with philosophy as the same arguments or the same forms of arguments can be used against you turning your position on its head.
"You can't know that because it is not testable."
"Yes it is."
"Prove it."
*Proves it*
"That doesn't count as evidence."
"Why not? It is the same thing you use for x."
"It doesn't fit my definition which I just created specifically to exclude your evidence."
"My dad can beat up your dad."
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😂 You can't prove a negative, and you can't use that fact as evidence.
That's an old and outdated argument. The "can't prove a negative" is not universal truth.
There's a circular nature to a lot of this, true. Repeated use of something doesn't mak it wrong, though. A couple times (and one more time that I point out below) you seem to dismiss something simply because it's a common argument. But you don't meet it intellectually to actually rebut it.
So I'm sorry if you're frustrated...I'm not sure why else you'd bring up Kandy. But there's not much else I can say.
Originally posted by dadudemon
See, this is why it gets muddy. You want an argument but none exists.Look: "The universe will produce life if there is a God: check. Damn, god is real. That was a testable theory for my postulated God."
"The universe will produce life if there is a God" isn't the only option though. Even if it meets the "testable" requirement (dubious), part of coming to a conclusion is accounting for other possible explanations, which this does not. Your statement supposes that it is the only possible explanation.
Socratically: How does this prove other theories for life aren't true? How do you know the universe will produce life if there is a God? Why is this the only valid explanation for life, especially when we know so much about how the universe came to be via causal mechanisms?
In summary: this is faith masquerading as logic. Or at the very least, a flawed hypothesis that doesn't take into account all possible explanations, discarding them in favor of the most desired.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's an old and outdated argument. The "can't prove a negative" is not universal truth.
Maybe not in every instance. But in this case, yes, it holds true. We can't prove that God doesn't exist. You're asking for an impossibility, (and thus making your belief unassailable regardless of the utter lack of evidence). So...
Originally posted by DigiThere are a lot of people who don't seem to be bothered or put off by their position's unfalsifiability. For some, it seems to make that position more tenable.
Maybe not in every instance. But in this case, yes, it holds true. We can't prove that God doesn't exist. You're asking for an impossibility, (and thus making your belief unassailable regardless of the utter lack of evidence). So...
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There are a lot of people who don't seem to be bothered or put off by their position's unfalsifiability. For some, it seems to make that position more tenable.
For faith-based beliefs, not evidence-based ones, yes, I can see how this might actually be considered a good thing.
Originally posted by Digi
There's a circular nature to a lot of this, true. Repeated use of something doesn't mak it wrong, though. A couple times (and one more time that I point out below) you seem to dismiss something simply because it's a common argument. But you don't meet it intellectually to actually rebut it.So I'm sorry if you're frustrated...I'm not sure why else you'd bring up Kandy. But there's not much else I can say.
"The universe will produce life if there is a God" isn't the only option though. Even if it meets the "testable" requirement (dubious), part of coming to a conclusion is accounting for other possible explanations, which this does not. Your statement supposes that it is the only possible explanation.
Socratically: How does this prove other theories for life aren't true? How do you know the universe will produce life if there is a God? Why is this the only valid explanation for life, especially when we know so much about how the universe came to be via causal mechanisms?
In summary: this is faith masquerading as logic. Or at the very least, a flawed hypothesis that doesn't take into account all possible explanations, discarding them in favor of the most desired.
Maybe not in every instance. But in this case, yes, it holds true. We can't prove that God doesn't exist. You're asking for an impossibility, (and thus making your belief unassailable regardless of the utter lack of evidence). So...
You choose an arbitrary argument and I choose another. We find evidence that's supports each of our positions which are both arbitrary.
No matter what I say, you'll move the goal posts. God exists. God created the universe. God created the laws of physics which created the universe. God created the system that governs the multiverse.
See, goal post pushing.
Originally posted by Digi
For faith-based beliefs, not evidence-based ones, yes, I can see how this might actually be considered a good thing.
My beliefs are evidence-based with pretty much no faith.
Your beliefs are almost entirely faith based.
It is in the way I choose to define things that I can claim that.
Originally posted by Digi
You're asking for an impossibility, (and thus making your belief unassailable regardless of the utter lack of evidence). So...
This is not true: you definitely can prove God doesn't exist.
This is part of why the ol' "can't prove a negative" is such amateurish argumentation style.
Pick a god and genuinely disprove that god does not exist. You can do it with many of them.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is an extraordinary claim, and it requires an extraordinary proof. Please provide that extraordinary proof for me.
I don't consider it an extraordinary claim, in the slightest.
I find the claim that God does not exist to be the extraordinary claim.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You choose an arbitrary argument and I choose another. We find evidence that's supports each of our positions which are both arbitrary.
What evidence have I presented? The lack of evidence is, if anything, the crux of my argument. Your case on the other hand, sounds very much like the Watchmaker Argument. About 8 of the top 10 results on Google for that phrase will present my case against it more fully than I could here.
Also, there's an odd implication that in "finding evidence that supports our views" we're both guilty of bias. I have nothing to win here, per se. And I actually delight in seeking out the best and brightest rebuttals to my views. It's how I grow and change. It also seems odd that you implicate yourself in the statement; we both know you're not that close-minded. But I do think you're misusing the word arbitrary here. Arbitrary implies random, without reason. We both have our reasons, such as they are.
I also can't help but point out that if you're going to accuse "derpy" atheists of repeating the same things, your own arguments here have been around for centuries to be considered, refuted, debunked, etc. Rather than go t*t for tat here, can we just agree that we're not treading new philosophical ground here, historically speaking? And that that fact shouldn't be a knock on any of us?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Pick a god and genuinely disprove that god does not exist. You can do it with many of them.
True, many of them. But "God" as a general concept is currently unfalsifiable. We're not dealing with, say, Zeus here, or even the Christian God. But God period. So the point stands.
It's also possible that someday we'll reach a level of understanding that would allow us to disprove this (but it's unlikely). Until then, we can't disprove "I believe God because everything." /shrug
If you think I'm wrong, please tell me how I'd disprove the idea of God. Like, what criteria would need to be met for such an refutation to be successful? This is genuine curiosity, btw, not sarcasm.
Originally posted by dadudemon
My beliefs are evidence-based with pretty much no faith.Your beliefs are almost entirely faith based.
It is in the way I choose to define things that I can claim that.
Do you choose to define the two words exactly opposite of how they are usually defined? Cause you should maybe point that out when talking about them from the start, then there won't be misunderstandings.