Is everything True, even false things?
June 20, 2011 at 11:42 am
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2011 at 6:37 pm by Rev. Rye.)
I'd like to make a few points about an argument I've seen made at least on occasion, by theists, some even on this forum (like Godschild for one). It goes like this:
P) You cannot prove God doesn't exist.
C)Therefore God exists.
While, at first glance, the proposition may appear (and I emphasise the words "may appear") to be valid, further inspection shows that the argument is deeply flawed.
1) There are only three types of statements that can be totally disproved to absolute certainty: If you can prove that one statement is true, then any statement that is in direct contradiction to that proved statement is disproven. Ex: If it can be proven that if I am in my home in the Chicago suburbs, at any given time, then any statement that I am in, for instance, Ethiopia at the same time is automatically disproven (There are exceptions, but they tend to be rendered moot at any level above the Planck Length). The other type of statement that can be disproven is if there is a logical contradiction in the statement. Ex: There are square circles on the cereal box. Since a square is a four-sided polygon with straight edges, and a circle has no straight edges, there is a logical contradiction in the statement and it is disproven. The third type of statement, however, is more relevant to the argument at hand. If one is searching for something, and it can be absolutely proven that the thing is not there, then it can be disproven. Needless to say, the smaller the area to be searched, and the larger the thing to be found, the easier it is to disprove a statement. Ex: If you go to an open field and do not see a live tyrannosaurus Rex in that field, (assuming that you have managed to get a 360 degree view, and managed to figure out that there was no camouflage involved) you have disproven that there is a live T-Rex there, unless technology has advanced to the level where technology can actually render things invisible.
2) There are many things whose non-existence we take for granted. For instance: dragons, trolls, goblins, leprechauns, witches whose magic actually works, or unicorns. I could go on listing mythical creatures, but I must get to my point, and admit that even the non-existence of these creatures cannot be definitively disproven to absolute certainty in any of the manners mentioned above. The existence of none of these creatures causes logical contradictions, and there is always the possibility that we could have left a few stones unturned and they could be living there. If we were to apply the above argument to the creatures I mentioned, we would be left to assume one argument. To quote the Principia Discordia:
3) However, for most purposes, there are some ways to get into a state of reasonable certainty about a proposition. And essentially, those ways tend to boil down to having a dilligent search for something, testing to see if it is true, and failing to do so. For instance: Imagine that a friend of yours thinks there might be mice in his attic because he's been hearing some squeaking up there. Imagine that the two of you had managed to clear out the attic, and, just to make sure, the two of you decide to bring a freshly-baked loaf of bread and a large block of cheese up to the freshly cleared attic, and just to ensure that nobody messes with the test, you board up the attic door for a few days, probably pushing a towel under the attic door just to make sure that no mouse pups escape. If, after a few days, you removed those boards and went up to check up on the bread and cheese and find that there was no bite taken out of the bread or cheese, we could be reasonably certain that there are no mice up there.
4) You may be asking, what does this talk of mice and bite marks have to do with the existence of God? Simply put, unlike many theists, atheists do not find that there is much compelling evidence pointing to the existence of a God. Believe it or not, many atheists have actually looked into a lot of things that theists have claimed are proof of God, and didn't find them to be very compelling evidence. And, because they have looked dilligently for evidence of God's existence and failed to find it, it should be noted that, unless one can prove God's existence (in theory, proving something should be much easier than disproving it, or even gaining reasonable certainty about its falsity), their doubts still remain valid.
If anyone can see that this argument is asinine without my explanation, then congratulations. You are smarter than this Philosophy Professor who did some Post-Grad at Yale.
P) You cannot prove God doesn't exist.
C)Therefore God exists.
While, at first glance, the proposition may appear (and I emphasise the words "may appear") to be valid, further inspection shows that the argument is deeply flawed.
1) There are only three types of statements that can be totally disproved to absolute certainty: If you can prove that one statement is true, then any statement that is in direct contradiction to that proved statement is disproven. Ex: If it can be proven that if I am in my home in the Chicago suburbs, at any given time, then any statement that I am in, for instance, Ethiopia at the same time is automatically disproven (There are exceptions, but they tend to be rendered moot at any level above the Planck Length). The other type of statement that can be disproven is if there is a logical contradiction in the statement. Ex: There are square circles on the cereal box. Since a square is a four-sided polygon with straight edges, and a circle has no straight edges, there is a logical contradiction in the statement and it is disproven. The third type of statement, however, is more relevant to the argument at hand. If one is searching for something, and it can be absolutely proven that the thing is not there, then it can be disproven. Needless to say, the smaller the area to be searched, and the larger the thing to be found, the easier it is to disprove a statement. Ex: If you go to an open field and do not see a live tyrannosaurus Rex in that field, (assuming that you have managed to get a 360 degree view, and managed to figure out that there was no camouflage involved) you have disproven that there is a live T-Rex there, unless technology has advanced to the level where technology can actually render things invisible.
2) There are many things whose non-existence we take for granted. For instance: dragons, trolls, goblins, leprechauns, witches whose magic actually works, or unicorns. I could go on listing mythical creatures, but I must get to my point, and admit that even the non-existence of these creatures cannot be definitively disproven to absolute certainty in any of the manners mentioned above. The existence of none of these creatures causes logical contradictions, and there is always the possibility that we could have left a few stones unturned and they could be living there. If we were to apply the above argument to the creatures I mentioned, we would be left to assume one argument. To quote the Principia Discordia:
Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst Wrote:GP: Is Eris true?What's worse, this argument also applies to all the many types of Gods that people believe exists. There's no real reason that this argument should apply any more to Yahweh than to Zeus.
M2: Everything is true.
GP: Even [apparently] false things?
M2: Even [apparently] false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.
3) However, for most purposes, there are some ways to get into a state of reasonable certainty about a proposition. And essentially, those ways tend to boil down to having a dilligent search for something, testing to see if it is true, and failing to do so. For instance: Imagine that a friend of yours thinks there might be mice in his attic because he's been hearing some squeaking up there. Imagine that the two of you had managed to clear out the attic, and, just to make sure, the two of you decide to bring a freshly-baked loaf of bread and a large block of cheese up to the freshly cleared attic, and just to ensure that nobody messes with the test, you board up the attic door for a few days, probably pushing a towel under the attic door just to make sure that no mouse pups escape. If, after a few days, you removed those boards and went up to check up on the bread and cheese and find that there was no bite taken out of the bread or cheese, we could be reasonably certain that there are no mice up there.
4) You may be asking, what does this talk of mice and bite marks have to do with the existence of God? Simply put, unlike many theists, atheists do not find that there is much compelling evidence pointing to the existence of a God. Believe it or not, many atheists have actually looked into a lot of things that theists have claimed are proof of God, and didn't find them to be very compelling evidence. And, because they have looked dilligently for evidence of God's existence and failed to find it, it should be noted that, unless one can prove God's existence (in theory, proving something should be much easier than disproving it, or even gaining reasonable certainty about its falsity), their doubts still remain valid.
If anyone can see that this argument is asinine without my explanation, then congratulations. You are smarter than this Philosophy Professor who did some Post-Grad at Yale.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
![[Image: bloodyheretic.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img849.imageshack.us%2Fimg849%2F8673%2Fbloodyheretic.png)
