Page 39 of 66 FirstFirst ... 2935363738394041424349 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 585 of 978

Thread: ‘There is NO GOD’ Stephen Hawking’s final revelation of the afterlife REVEALED

  1. #571 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    So...your position now is "one cannot prove a negative"...

    ...and...

    ..."one can prove a negative."

    Interesting.
    One can prove a negative, but only under very limited circumstances, which are not being used by most here. Having said that, your position that it is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods and that it is not possible to prove any god or gods do not exist IS a negative proof that is valid. I already agreed with it.

    My comment that it is not possible prove a negative is directed toward those attempting the invalid forms of a negative proof (which I described here).

  2. #572 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The phrase "There are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If used as a predicate, you will find challengers on it's use as such.
    Oops, you must have posted that as I got started on my post.

    Sorry for my last post. We're both up early...and at the computer.

    Okay..."There are no gods" IS A POSITIVE. As such, it bears the same burden of proof any other assertion requires. I've mentioned that...but the atheist here then proclaim that they can say that without assuming the burden...and that in any case, one cannot prove a negative.

    You say both that one cannot prove a negative and one can prove a negative. (That should be cleared up.)

    Would you mind giving us a couple of examples of "a negative."

  3. #573 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    One can prove a negative, but only under very limited circumstances, which are not being used by most here. Having said that, your position that it is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods and that it is not possible to prove any god or gods do not exist IS a negative proof that is valid. I already agreed with it.

    My comment that it is not possible prove a negative is directed toward those attempting the invalid forms of a negative proof (which I described here).
    That would have been much more classy if you had simply acknowledged an error...that of saying both "one cannot prove a negative" and "one can prove a negative."

    Obviously we both are working with what is going on here...in this discussion.

    When someone says, "one cannot prove a negative" in regard to "there are no gods"..."there are no gods" obviously is being perceived as a negative...not a positive.

    That formed the basis for my comments.

    Now, I still say that one CAN prove a negative...and one can.

    I'll wait for a few examples of "negatives."

  4. #574 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The "fallacy" bullshit truly is getting old, mostly because you are overdoing it. Get away from it.
    No.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Anyway...earlier, I insisted that one CAN prove a negative...and mentioned that the scope of the negative mattered. You dismissed the notion that the scope matters (which seems incredible considering your supposed expertise)...but never responded to the question I asked:
    Scope doesn't matter. Form of argument does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Is "There are no gods" a negative? If I could prove that there are no gods...would I be proving a negative?

    Mind answering that!
    Sure. The phrase "there are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If you use it as a predicate, it would be a positive predicate. Used as a conclusion it is a positive conclusion.

    Attempting to use it as a predicate will likely result in challenges, since the statement itself as a conclusion is not possible. The reason it is not possible is because the only predicates available are negative ones. The same is true of the statement "there are gods". It is not possible to prove a positive with negative predicates.

    I challenged you on the positive statement "there is no evidence" because that is likewise a positive statement, and you were using it as a conclusion. It is an invalid conclusion because you were basing that conclusion on a circular argument. Supporting evidence DOES exist for both cases. ALL of it is negative statements or circular arguments in their own right. Because of that, NONE of it can be used to form the positive conclusion "there is a god" or "there is no god". Such a conclusion is also therefore a circular argument, and the argument of ignorance fallacy.

    This brings up the question: What is a negative statement? What is a positive statement?

    A positive statement is one that is definitive and specific. A negative statement is everything else. Thus, "there is no god" is a positive statement. It is definitive. It is specific. It also happens to be a circular argument, but that in and of itself is not a fallacy. The same is true of the statement "there is a god".

    The statement "there is no evidence", however, is a negative statement. It is NOT definitive. It is NOT specific. It attempts to declare a non-void set as void. The only way this can be a positive statement is if the set can be proven void. No such proof was given.

    The supporting evidence I listed for both cases, such as "life itself" is a negative statement. It is not definitive. It is not specific. It is an set of an unknown number of elements which makes the set too generic to be specific.

  5. #575 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    No.

    Scope doesn't matter. Form of argument does.

    Sure. The phrase "there are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If you use it as a predicate, it would be a positive predicate. Used as a conclusion it is a positive conclusion.

    Attempting to use it as a predicate will likely result in challenges, since the statement itself as a conclusion is not possible. The reason it is not possible is because the only predicates available are negative ones. The same is true of the statement "there are gods". It is not possible to prove a positive with negative predicates.

    I challenged you on the positive statement "there is no evidence" because that is likewise a positive statement, and you were using it as a conclusion. It is an invalid conclusion because you were basing that conclusion on a circular argument. Supporting evidence DOES exist for both cases. ALL of it is negative statements or circular arguments in their own right. Because of that, NONE of it can be used to form the positive conclusion "there is a god" or "there is no god". Such a conclusion is also therefore a circular argument, and the argument of ignorance fallacy.

    This brings up the question: What is a negative statement? What is a positive statement?

    A positive statement is one that is definitive and specific. A negative statement is everything else. Thus, "there is no god" is a positive statement. It is definitive. It is specific. It also happens to be a circular argument, but that in and of itself is not a fallacy. The same is true of the statement "there is a god".

    The statement "there is no evidence", however, is a negative statement. It is NOT definitive. It is NOT specific. It attempts to declare a non-void set as void. The only way this can be a positive statement is if the set can be proven void. No such proof was given.

    The supporting evidence I listed for both cases, such as "life itself" is a negative statement. It is not definitive. It is not specific. It is an set of an unknown number of elements which makes the set too generic to be specific.
    I disagree with some of what you say here...some essential stuff...but I am too goddam tired to do this now. I'll mull over my response while cutting the wood delivered into pieces small enough for our wood burning stove.

    Maybe later today.

    Good talking!

  6. #576 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    "Prove that Dragons don't exist." U9
    It's easier to prove they do exist.

    Komodo dragon (ke-mÖ´dÖ drŕg´en) noun
    A large monitor lizard (Varanus komodoensis) native to Indonesia. It is the largest living lizard, sometimes growing to a length of 3 meters (10 feet).

    [After Komodo, an island of south-central Indonesia.]
    *


    * Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  7. #577 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,853
    Thanks
    13,246
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guno View Post
    more stawmen from the magical thinker
    sorry, hamock.....apparently it was the staw that broke the argument's back....

  8. #578 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Science is incapable of prediction. It is an open functional system. Theories of science can only describe, not predict.

    To gain the power of prediction, science must transcribe the theory into a closed function system, such as mathematics or logic. Only there exists the power of the proof. Along with the power of proof comes the power of prediction. That transcription process is called 'formalizing' a theory. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. Theories of science in the area of physics generally will formalize into mathematics.

    Otherwise you are correct. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It does not use supporting evidence (the theory itself is all the support it needs). Science only uses conflicting evidence. A theory remains a theory until it is destroyed by falsification. There are no proofs in science. The requirement of falsifiability is a rigorous test. A null hypothesis of the theory must developed. A test must be constructed to test that null hypothesis. That test must be practical, available, specific, and produce a specific result. It the theory survives, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain a theory of science until some test upon the null hypothesis is successful, utterly destroying that theory. The test of falsifiability is the ONLY test that can take a theory beyond the simple circular argument (where all theories, including scientific theories originate).
    False Science can be utilized to make informed predictions. it is not "incapable of prediction"

    http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...f-forecasting/

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69207086900282

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowcasting_(meteorology)

    People here make too many categorical assertions.
    Last edited by Micawber; 10-20-2018 at 06:25 AM.

  9. #579 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    It's easier to prove they do exist.

    Komodo dragon (ke-mÖ´dÖ drŕg´en) noun
    A large monitor lizard (Varanus komodoensis) native to Indonesia. It is the largest living lizard, sometimes growing to a length of 3 meters (10 feet).

    [After Komodo, an island of south-central Indonesia.]
    *


    * Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
    You've pretty much summed of 90 percent of the disagreements here, semantic.

  10. #580 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    False Science can be utilized to make informed predictions. it is not "incapable of prediction"

    http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...f-forecasting/

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69207086900282

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowcasting_(meteorology)

    People here make too many categorical assertions.

    Ummm...

    ...that kinda is a categorical assertion, Mic.

  11. #581 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    M #579

    I won't address Sam's antics here.
    Suffice it to say, it's the reason defining terms is so basic to structured debate.

    - Introductions
    - Recite the resolve
    - Define terms

    But just between you & me M, demons are real. The only refuge is death. Have a nice day.
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  12. #582 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    No.

    Scope doesn't matter. Form of argument does.

    Sure. The phrase "there are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If you use it as a predicate, it would be a positive predicate. Used as a conclusion it is a positive conclusion.

    Attempting to use it as a predicate will likely result in challenges, since the statement itself as a conclusion is not possible. The reason it is not possible is because the only predicates available are negative ones. The same is true of the statement "there are gods". It is not possible to prove a positive with negative predicates.

    I challenged you on the positive statement "there is no evidence" because that is likewise a positive statement, and you were using it as a conclusion. It is an invalid conclusion because you were basing that conclusion on a circular argument. Supporting evidence DOES exist for both cases. ALL of it is negative statements or circular arguments in their own right. Because of that, NONE of it can be used to form the positive conclusion "there is a god" or "there is no god". Such a conclusion is also therefore a circular argument, and the argument of ignorance fallacy.

    This brings up the question: What is a negative statement? What is a positive statement?

    A positive statement is one that is definitive and specific. A negative statement is everything else. Thus, "there is no god" is a positive statement. It is definitive. It is specific. It also happens to be a circular argument, but that in and of itself is not a fallacy. The same is true of the statement "there is a god".

    The statement "there is no evidence", however, is a negative statement. It is NOT definitive. It is NOT specific. It attempts to declare a non-void set as void. The only way this can be a positive statement is if the set can be proven void. No such proof was given.

    The supporting evidence I listed for both cases, such as "life itself" is a negative statement. It is not definitive. It is not specific. It is an set of an unknown number of elements which makes the set too generic to be specific.
    You said "there are no gods" is positive due to its definitive character, yet you said "there is no evidence" was negative because it as not definitive and not specific.
    You did not require gods to be specific, and you need to reconcile. I must infer you think gods is specific or for some other reason the stated requirement of specificity
    doesn't apply.

  13. #583 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Ummm...

    ...that kinda is a categorical assertion, Mic.
    Yes and no, Frank. He said "science is incapable of prediction" I said "false"
    For my categorical assertion that his was false to be true, I need only show a single instance of science being capable of prediction.
    So I offered several examples where science is capable of prediction.
    I suppose we can quarrel over how capable, but incapable is patently untrue on the facts.
    I said people make too many categorical statements. Mine was not too many, mine was among the true ones.

    I also think he was just being overly restrictive in what he considers science. That may be subjective.
    Perhaps anything but the gathering of evidence and assemblage of it is what he considers the science .
    Most people are predicting by the mere instance of making a hypothesis in the first place, and I consider that "science" as well.
    Those hypotheses' are predictive as well, and derive from prior science in most cases.

  14. #584 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    No.

    Scope doesn't matter. Form of argument does.

    Sure. The phrase "there are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If you use it as a predicate, it would be a positive predicate. Used as a conclusion it is a positive conclusion.

    Attempting to use it as a predicate will likely result in challenges, since the statement itself as a conclusion is not possible. The reason it is not possible is because the only predicates available are negative ones. The same is true of the statement "there are gods". It is not possible to prove a positive with negative predicates.

    I challenged you on the positive statement "there is no evidence" because that is likewise a positive statement, and you were using it as a conclusion. It is an invalid conclusion because you were basing that conclusion on a circular argument. Supporting evidence DOES exist for both cases. ALL of it is negative statements or circular arguments in their own right. Because of that, NONE of it can be used to form the positive conclusion "there is a god" or "there is no god". Such a conclusion is also therefore a circular argument, and the argument of ignorance fallacy.

    This brings up the question: What is a negative statement? What is a positive statement?

    A positive statement is one that is definitive and specific. A negative statement is everything else. Thus, "there is no god" is a positive statement. It is definitive. It is specific. It also happens to be a circular argument, but that in and of itself is not a fallacy. The same is true of the statement "there is a god".

    The statement "there is no evidence", however, is a negative statement. It is NOT definitive. It is NOT specific. It attempts to declare a non-void set as void. The only way this can be a positive statement is if the set can be proven void. No such proof was given.

    The supporting evidence I listed for both cases, such as "life itself" is a negative statement. It is not definitive. It is not specific. It is an set of an unknown number of elements which makes the set too generic to be specific.
    I just want to make clear that earlier (to someone other than you) I mentioned that EVERYTHING is evidence of "at least one god exists"...IF GODS EXIST...and that EVERYTHING is evidence of "no gods exist"...IF NO GODS EXIST.

    So, yes, I agree that technically it is evidence, but it is evidence of such ambiguity almost all of it can be used as evidence of both assertions. It certainly is not unambiguous evidence...and it is not even evidence that should be offered in support of either assertion. I appreciate you COULD offer it, however, in refutation of my "there is no evidence"...but for what purpose?

    That scholarly nit picking does not move this discussion forward any, although I will acknowledge "moving this discussion forward" is probably not going to happen no matter what.

    The theists seem content with "I 'believe' there is a GOD" (they have a specific one in mind) and "my 'faith' is strong" (meaning my insistence that my blind guess is correct will not waiver.)

    The atheists (or atheist thinkers) are determined not to concede anything...even points that are obvious. Discussions of this sort are no more productive under those circumstances than are debates. An essential of debate (or discussions of this sort) is to concede points made...and not have them linger.

    There is just the fun of the give and take here now...and anyone who does not enjoy it (especially if irritated with it)...should abandon ship.

    I've got more to say. We put off going to the wood pile, because there is a light mist right now...and no need to get the chop saw wet.

    More to come in a bit.

  15. #585 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    M #579

    I won't address Sam's antics here.
    Suffice it to say, it's the reason defining terms is so basic to structured debate.

    - Introductions
    - Recite the resolve
    - Define terms

    But just between you & me M, demons are real. The only refuge is death. Have a nice day.
    You too Sear. Komodo dragons aren't that scary unless you get their saliva on your arm somehow. They seem slow and disinterested in us.

Similar Threads

  1. Stephen Hawking dies aged 76
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 184
    Last Post: 03-16-2018, 09:29 PM
  2. Stephen Hawking is dead at 76
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 11:28 PM
  3. Stephen Hawking is dead at 76
    By Nordberg in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 10:11 PM
  4. Stephen Hawking Puts An Expiry Date On Humanity
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 02:27 AM
  5. Shout Out from Dr. Stephen Hawking
    By Cypress in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-11-2010, 07:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •