Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?

[g-mark]

I concur. Which is what I have against gnostic atheism. How do they claim to know God doesn't exist? You can't prove a negative!! :S

EvF

Very interesting.

[Tiberius]

I concur. Which is what I have against gnostic atheism. How do they claim to know God doesn't exist? You can't prove a negative!! :S

EvF

Agreed. Of course, there needs to be a distinction between relative and absolute knowledge. Relatively, I know there is no God. Absolutely, I do not know. Philosophy is fun

[Edwardo Piet]

So in other words... 'to you' you "know" there's no God. But you cannot absolutely know that, right?

And yes - I love philosophy too. I fucking love philosophy. I don't care whether I suck it or not...(I'm not sure how to rate myself on it anyway? I suck at it in a formal sense anyway (atm)) - I bloody enjoy thinking "Philosophically" though, that's for sure. As in pondering the universe and...thinking about thinking

EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@EVF

Can't prove a negative?


Is that correct? I'm not being a smartarse, I'm really confused here.

Would some one please explain the difference between "falsifying a claim" and "proving a negative"



From Wiki

Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term "Testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

My view is : The agnostic atheist who simply asserts "I don't' believe" has no burden of proof,as he makes no claims. The hard atheist,who asserts "There is no god" /"I believe there is no god", DOES have a burden of proof as he is making a claim just as much as the believer who asserts "there IS a god"/ "I believe there IS a god". I reject both positions as unfalisifiable,as metaphysical positions tend to be.My other favourite is the free will/determinism dichotomy. Many still make the same claim of dualism. I don't; I've long accepted the materialist view as having been proven.[to my satisfaction]

[g-mark]

Proof of a negative:

1 - 7 = -6

[Eilonnwy]

Proof of a negative:

1 - 7 = -6

The stupidity of this statement is astounding.

This isn't proving a negative statement. It's a math problem. Math and philosophy are not the same thing.

[LukeMC]

@EVF

Can't prove a negative?


Is that correct? I'm not being a smartarse, I'm really confused here.

Would some one please explain the difference between "falsifying a claim" and "proving a negative"

I'll give this a shot.

You're right, they're essentially the same thing (correct me if I'm wrong anyone). On a small scale, proving a negative is the equivalent to falsifying a claim. However, on a universal scale, proving a negative/falsifying a claim goes from difficult to impossible. The real phrase should be "you can't prove universal negatives" or "absolute negatives".

Here's why:

---

We can prove a negative insofar as we can say "there are no lions in my hand" and offer suitable proof that our hands do indeed contain no traces of a lion (we must agree that we mean a real lion, full sized male for example). We could also say "there are no pink lions in Chester Zoo", which we could prove by examining the entirety of Chester Zoo and seeing no trace of pink lions in the vicinity after extensive searching of all areas of the zoo, including the air space and back rooms. There aren't any pink lions there. However, the absolute claim "there are no pink lions anywhere" cannot be proven unless we search the entire universe to confirm this claim. As far as I can tell, they're only impossible to prove because they are out of our ability to prove them. Proving a negative is especially difficult when dealing in metaphysics as you would have to search and investigate all possible realms of reality and parrallel dimensions and other such madness.

So, to falsify the claim "I have a pink lion in my hand" would only take a simple observation. To prove the negative claim that "I have no pink lion in my hand" would also only take a simple observation. However, to falsify the claim "pink lions exist" one would effectively be forced to prove a negative and search the entire universe extensively and find no pink lions. This is certainly difficult to do, and so we lay the burden of proof on the those making the claim. It is much easier to prove the existence of something than to disprove it.

As far as God is concerned, you can imagine why that's such a nightmare. To prove that he doesn't exist would require omniscience. To prove that he does exist would only require a 5 minute demonstration. Hence, the burden of proof is placed on the believer, while the rest of us rationalists accept the null hypothesis that this God creature probably doesn't exist.

[/waffle]

---

[g-mark]

Math and philosophy are not the same thing.

Get your facts right. Mathematics was once a philosophy. Every science was once a philosophy. Now your a moderator has that elevated you to 'know it all'. Looks as if it has. Should I bow now. Your jugements show evidence of your true character.

Show me your scientific/researched evidence that Philosophy and Maths are not the same thing. Your opinion will not suffice.

[Eilonnwy]

Math and philosophy are not the same thing.

Get your facts right. Mathematics was once a philosophy. Every science was once a philosophy. Now your a moderator has that elevated you to 'know it all'. Looks as if it has. Should I bow now. Your jugements show evidence of your true character.

Show me your scientific/researched evidence that Philosophy and Maths are not the same thing. Your opinion will not suffice.

phi⋅los⋅o⋅phy
  /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ Show Spelled [fi-los-uh-fee] Show IPA
Use philosophy in a Sentence
–noun, plural -phies.
1.the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2.any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3.a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4.the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5.a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6.a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.


math⋅e⋅mat⋅ics
  /ˌmæθəˈmætɪks/ Show Spelled [math-uh-mat-iks] Show IPA
Use mathematics in a Sentence
–noun
1.(used with a singular verb) the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.
2.(used with a singular or plural verb) mathematical procedures, operations, or properties.

Hmmm, they suspiciously look like not the same thing.

Proving a negative as a mathematical equation is a concept of numbers. Proving a negative in philosophy is a concept truth. Saying that they are the same because one was rooted in the other is silly.

The concept that you can't prove a negative is about proving that something doesn't exist, not a negative quantity. That's a big difference. Whether you can or cannot prove a negative statement is debatable. And yes, a math problem is a statement, but with two different meanings. Like the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory, there is a difference in a philosophical statement and a mathematical statement.

And no, I don't claim to know it all. Never have, never will. Moderator or not I still would have pointed out the fallacy in the statement you made. So please, try to argue based on facts and not make baseless accusations that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Ad hominems get you nowhere.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Math and philosophy are not the same thing.

Every science was once a philosophy. Now your a moderator has that elevated you to 'know it all'. Looks as if it has. Should I bow now. Your jugements show evidence of your true character.

Science still is a philosophy (indeed, in terms of actually seeking knowledge, the only philosophy that has been shown to work) ... I suppose math is too in that sense although it is more abstract.

Kyu