Posts: 48
Threads: 3
Joined: June 6, 2013
Reputation:
0
Proving a negative
July 4, 2013 at 11:59 pm
How do you respond do a deist asking you to prove there is no god? It is our belief that there is no such thing, but to the contrary proving a negative is impossible, right? How does one be a completely rational athiest? Hitchens showed me what is wrong with religion, something I already knew, a suffering and pain of humans that spans beyond human imagination. Dawkins taught me that when he said we are 99.99% correct in our disbelief according to the evidence that is enough to believe, but I am wondering about that small percentage, as a rationalist. The 0.0infinity-1% is relevant. Do you consider yourself a true believer? A true believer in knowing there is no god, trusting in the obvious reality of the simple moment of your life like a tightrope walker attempting to convert those that have become infected with the sick disease of disbelief.
You may believe this is dualistic rhetoric from a false prophet with a godless complex. However These are the questions that haunt me while I walk hills and flatlands, mountains and rivers, and any help from my human kind is welcome with open arms, for I know that it is just you, not a puppet master trying to clean up a mess of tangled spider web strings with a sunly(sic) sacrifice for the appeasement of his own sins (Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy -Matthew 5:7 and Deuteronomy 4:31 For the lord your god is a merciful god and therefore he shall performing erotic asphyxiation and blast his holy load on the face of humanity...)
Posts: 1401
Threads: 7
Joined: March 6, 2013
Reputation:
36
RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 12:45 am
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2013 at 12:46 am by Tartarus Sauce.)
Really? THIS is what bothers you?
Atheism isn't about proving the non-existence of god(s), it just means you don't believe they exist.
And what do you mean do I consider myself a "true" believer? You mean a true NON-believer? Here is a "true" non-believer: an atheist that doesn't believe in god, there simple as that. You are starting to sound like the religious to be honest, the way you are phrasing things.
freedomfromfallacy » I'm weighing my tears to see if the happy ones weigh the same as the sad ones.
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 12:50 am
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2013 at 12:56 am by Ryantology.)
I have a practical and philosophical approach to the question. In my practical, everyday life, it's obvious there are no gods, and it's obvious why people invented them. An assertion intentionally designed with that much care to be impervious to empiricism is too likely to be a lie. When speaking philosophically, I respect the boundaries of human knowledge, whatever they are, so I consider God to be infinitesimally close to impossible while leaving that tiny gap, because intellectual honestly demands it.
Posts: 189
Threads: 3
Joined: June 30, 2013
Reputation:
2
RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 1:05 am
Why do you all think you can't prove a negative? Of course you can. YOu just show that the positive contains a contradiction. 'Square circles exist' contains a contradiction. Therefore square circles do not exist. Done.
Posts: 48
Threads: 3
Joined: June 6, 2013
Reputation:
0
RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 1:11 am
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2013 at 1:12 am by LeoVonFrost.)
(July 5, 2013 at 12:45 am)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: Really? THIS is what bothers you?
Atheism isn't about proving the non-existence of god(s), it just means you don't believe they exist.
And what do you mean do I consider myself a "true" believer? You mean a true NON-believer? Here is a "true" non-believer: an atheist that doesn't believe in god, there simple as that. You are starting to sound like the religious to be honest, the way you are phrasing things.
Yes, this is what bothers me. It is all about proof, since I was in science in grade school I have applied the scientific method. When I say you are a true believer I mean to imply that you do believe there is no god, right? And you are 100 percent on your assumption? Take it from a person on your side of the line, it's not easy believing in not believing. There is no 100 percent and it is the duality of the entire preposition of proclaiming our faith in the lack of faith for any diety that perplexes me.
(July 5, 2013 at 1:05 am)Inigo Wrote: Why do you all think you can't prove a negative? Of course you can. YOu just show that the positive contains a contradiction. 'Square circles exist' contains a contradiction. Therefore square circles do not exist. Done.
>>>positive contains a contradiction
>>>welcometoearth.jpg
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 1:29 am
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2013 at 1:29 am by Ryantology.)
(July 5, 2013 at 1:05 am)Inigo Wrote: Why do you all think you can't prove a negative? Of course you can. YOu just show that the positive contains a contradiction. 'Square circles exist' contains a contradiction. Therefore square circles do not exist. Done.
"Can you prove that God doesn't speak to me? He can because he is omnipotent and can do anything, but you can't perceive him with your senses or material instruments and he will only reveal himself to you if you open your heart to him."
Positive assertions intentionally made to be immune to any kind of independent testing make it impossible to prove the negative. That is the entire point.
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 2:01 am
(July 5, 2013 at 1:11 am)LeoVonFrost Wrote: Yes, this is what bothers me. It is all about proof, since I was in science in grade school I have applied the scientific method. When I say you are a true believer I mean to imply that you do believe there is no god, right? And you are 100 percent on your assumption? Take it from a person on your side of the line, it's not easy believing in not believing. There is no 100 percent and it is the duality of the entire preposition of proclaiming our faith in the lack of faith for any diety that perplexes me.
Your poll is flawed. You intentionally omitted "Fuck off" as a choice. Curious?
The next time you attempt to portray yourself as an atheist, I recommend not using derivations of the words belief and faith to make your point. Your sing/songy manner of speach doesn't help much either.
"...it's not easy believing in not believing." You betray yourself.
Posts: 2168
Threads: 9
Joined: June 21, 2013
Reputation:
27
RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 2:08 am
Glad you brought up the scientific method, as you probably know, in science there's a cut off point. We do this using statistics, if 2 samples are compared and p<0.05 we call it significant, if p>0.05 we say it's not significant (the cutoff point i use here is biology's). No one tries to establish absolutes like 0% or 100%. I have to say that my cut off point when it comes to god, would make 0.00000000000000000001% insignificant. I don't see the need to rearrange my life or my views for this extremely unlikely event while ignoring the extremely real events.
Not everything is relevant, not everything is significant.
Posts: 48
Threads: 3
Joined: June 6, 2013
Reputation:
0
RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 2:09 am
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2013 at 2:11 am by LeoVonFrost.)
(July 5, 2013 at 2:01 am)cato123 Wrote: (July 5, 2013 at 1:11 am)LeoVonFrost Wrote: Yes, this is what bothers me. It is all about proof, since I was in science in grade school I have applied the scientific method. When I say you are a true believer I mean to imply that you do believe there is no god, right? And you are 100 percent on your assumption? Take it from a person on your side of the line, it's not easy believing in not believing. There is no 100 percent and it is the duality of the entire preposition of proclaiming our faith in the lack of faith for any diety that perplexes me.
Your poll is flawed. You intentionally omitted "Fuck off" as a choice. Curious?
The next time you attempt to portray yourself as an atheist, I recommend not using derivations of the words belief and faith to make your point. Your sing/songy manner of speach doesn't help much either.
"...it's not easy believing in not believing." You betray yourself.
Maybe you should get to know someone before casting judgement upon them. My poll is for investigation, Your "Fuck off" is an insult to the rational mind. I do not portray myself as an atheist, such labels are ridiculous. My SingSongy manner is in my blood, I can not change this. If I have offended you with my beliefs I am sorry that you are so narrow-minded you can't see that I am merely conducting an investigation and your hatred towards the poll context is the cherry on top of the stupid cake.
(July 5, 2013 at 2:08 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Glad you brought up the scientific method, as you probably know, in science there's a cut off point. We do this using statistics, if 2 samples are compared and p<0.05 we call it significant, if p>0.05 we say it's not significant (the cutoff point i use here is biology's). No one tries to establish absolutes like 0% or 100%. I have to say that my cut off point when it comes to god, would make 0.00000000000000000001% insignificant. I don't see the need to rearrange my life or my views for this extremely unlikely event while ignoring the extremely real events.
Not everything is relevant, not everything is significant.
Are you comfortable with an absolute assertion that there is no god, achieved by the scientific method?
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 2:12 am
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2013 at 2:14 am by genkaus.)
(July 5, 2013 at 1:29 am)Ryantology Wrote: (July 5, 2013 at 1:05 am)Inigo Wrote: Why do you all think you can't prove a negative? Of course you can. YOu just show that the positive contains a contradiction. 'Square circles exist' contains a contradiction. Therefore square circles do not exist. Done.
"Can you prove that God doesn't speak to me? He can because he is omnipotent and can do anything, but you can't perceive him with your senses or material instruments and he will only reveal himself to you if you open your heart to him."
Positive assertions intentionally made to be immune to any kind of independent testing make it impossible to prove the negative. That is the entire point.
Surprisingly enough, I agree with Inigo here. All concepts regarding god that I've encountered so far have been illogical and self-contradictory.
(July 5, 2013 at 2:09 am)LeoVonFrost Wrote: Are you comfortable with an absolute assertion that there is no god, achieved by the scientific method?
That would be ridiculous. The scientific method does not make absolute assertions.
|
