The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence » The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence

The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence
Arguments that attempt to disprove God by lack of evidence beg the question

Page: 1 2

The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God by Evidence

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/08/08 - 08:15 PM:	#26
I want to clear a couple things up. christiangoth wrote: but he[itry2brational] began to make claims about the problems found in my argument here before the topic was concluded My emotions want to call this what it is, a lie, but I try to maintain a modicum of decorum(too late I guess) and use different terminology: This is false. This marks the 2nd time CG has made this type of 'claim'. I originally posted his 'arguments' 'premises' whatever you want to call them at this post: Single Premise or Argument Now, in my original post I made NO 'claims'. I asked for assistance. I expressed my lack of confidence in his propositions and arguments but did NOT say what they were. CG is right about one thing, my post here in this thread is not directly related to the topic at hand, which appears to be exposing his arguments for what they are, poorly composed or fallacious. I had noticed that some people were taking a great deal of time and effort to respond, while seemingly not getting through to CG. IMO, people's time is valuable. It seemed only fair to them to know how CG was characterizing(misrepresenting) how his arguments were being received here in this thread. For me, its almost like he is stabbing Kwalish Kid and 180 Proof in the back while simultaneously shaking their hands and putting on a polite smile. Incidentally this is not the first time someone has characterized CG by using words like 'dishonesty'. IMO, when people have used this negative term I do not think they mean it in the way which means CG is being malicious towards them but rather than he is being 'dishonest' to himself. I honestly feel that CG is quite an intelligent person. But, as demonstrated both here and at the other website, his ability to mentally compartmentalize things is near super human, and troubling. Also, his ability to be pedantic is, so far, unrivaled from my experience. Though this does not preclude him from being wrong. I won't bother with addressing those issues regarding 'proclaimed victory', 'took' vs 'take' and 'riddled' with ad hominems. So while this post and my previous one are "not logically substantive to the topic" I feel they are personally substantive to those who are graciously sacrificing their time on it. As anyone who visits my own thread can hopefully see, my purpose about bringing CG's argument here was educational and I truly am learning...though admittedly I am only reading the responses and not CG's posts. (I've already received those treatises personally at youtube)

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7784

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:08 AM:	#27
The ugly head of "certainty" arises again. The fact is that (nearly) everyone knows that logical certainty (fulfilling the rules of a particular system of logic/creating a sound syllogysm) cannot prove an empirical negative claim. The claim "God exists" or it's denial "God does not exist" are empirical claims. In order to rationally discuss empirical claims, one needs to include inductive reasoning and the weight of evidence. In common parlance, one may reasonably use the term "certainty" to denote such an overwhelming preponderance of evidencial weight towards or against a given proposition to make it unthinkably imporabable(or probable). Because of that wieght of evidence, they are confident enough to act in the world as if there belief were so without any hesitation.That's what most people mean when using the term "certain". According to the latter and more common use, I am certain that there is no God (except fictionally). I am also certain that there is no Gandolf (except fictionally), and will happily live my life with great confidence that the wizard doesn't exist, even though I can create no logical argument which "proves" it to a logical certainty. I don't know if the failure to recognize the distinction between the common use of the word and the more specialized use is intentional, slipped into conveniently, or entirely by mistake, but the product is that the argument is generally straw man, as no reasonable person denies with logical certainty an empirical statement (unless the empirical statement is self-contradictory somehow, which to show the simple statememnt "God exists" to be would required quite a few additional assumptions). You really spent a great deal of typing when you could have said "no empirical question can be decided with logical certainty". Case closed, but a fairly trivial case, because we all (or mostly) know this already. Misusing and misinterpreting the term "certainty (whether intentional or not) has a misleading effect. Care with such terms is advisable. Edited by Reformed Nihilist on 05/09/08 - 09:14 AM
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

doomdragonz
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 14, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/13/08 - 08:38 AM:	#28
It is impossible to prove or disprove a god, but we as humans have the choice to choose whether things happens due to a form of god or gods, or just due to science, though some believe in both, that god controls science....

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.