U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2011, 11:09 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
7,088 posts, read 13,038,023 times
Reputation: 3984

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
I would also agree with Hueffenhardt, however improbable you may think a God is, you have no grounds to say that one is impossible, unless you know all the secrets of the universe and and beyond.
Of course you do, ole Hueff is bending the rules of logic. It is the positive position that has the obligation to prove its' point, to disbelieve because there is a lack of evidence is the logical conclusion. The negative does not need to prove it's position, the rule in formal debate goes "he who asserts (that this god thingy is real) bears the burden of proof, without any logical proof, the default position is considered as true. Logic 101.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2011, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,108 posts, read 2,497,318 times
Reputation: 1018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Rhodes View Post
Of course you do, ole Hueff is bending the rules of logic. It is the positive position that has the obligation to prove its' point, to disbelieve because there is a lack of evidence is the logical conclusion. The negative does not need to prove it's position, the rule in formal debate goes "he who asserts (that this god thingy is real) bears the burden of proof, without any logical proof, the default position is considered as true. Logic 101.
Sorry, Dusty, but my logic in this thing is impeccable. Perhaps you missed my last response to this accusation (post 130). I will repeat it for you here.

You are confusing two different things.

I have been talking about logical possibility, not philosophic burden of proof when asserting something exists. You are correct that someone claiming that something positively exists does have the burden of proof to show that it does exist. But, I am not talking asserting something exists, I am talking about whether something could possibly exist. The logically possible proposition is possible unless it is logically contradictory, so the burden is on the person who claims something is impossible to prove that it is inherently contradictory.

Do you get the difference? Possible versus impossible in contrast to asserting not merely that something is possible, but that it does in fact exist.

The question of whether dark matter could possibly exist is separate from whether we have enough data to prove that it does exist. If I am asserting that it does exist, then I have to prove it. But, if someone is asserting that it is impossible for dark matter to exist, then they have to show why it is impossible, i.e., why it is logically contradictory.

Hopefully, I have said enough to clear that up. If not, please let me know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 10:36 PM
 
40,037 posts, read 26,715,004 times
Reputation: 6047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
Sorry, Dusty, but my logic in this thing is impeccable. Perhaps you missed my last response to this accusation (post 130). I will repeat it for you here.

You are confusing two different things.

I have been talking about logical possibility, not philosophic burden of proof when asserting something exists. You are correct that someone claiming that something positively exists does have the burden of proof to show that it does exist. But, I am not talking asserting something exists, I am talking about whether something could possibly exist. The logically possible proposition is possible unless it is logically contradictory, so the burden is on the person who claims something is impossible to prove that it is inherently contradictory.

Do you get the difference? Possible versus impossible in contrast to asserting not merely that something is possible, but that it does in fact exist.

The question of whether dark matter could possibly exist is separate from whether we have enough data to prove that it does exist. If I am asserting that it does exist, then I have to prove it. But, if someone is asserting that it is impossible for dark matter to exist, then they have to show why it is impossible, i.e., why it is logically contradictory.

Hopefully, I have said enough to clear that up. If not, please let me know.
You are one of the atheists who truly understands the application of logic. I think most of them think it means it is the common sense thing. It is why they do not seem to understand why they cannot claim atheism is the logical position. You cannot possibly produce syllogisms to proceed from premises of no consciousness and intelligence to predicates of consciousness and intelligence. It cannot be done logically. It can be claimed to be the more preferred position given the preponderance of a materialist bias toward existence . . . but not a logical one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,108 posts, read 2,497,318 times
Reputation: 1018
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You cannot possibly produce syllogisms to proceed from premises of no consciousness and intelligence to predicates of consciousness and intelligence. It cannot be done logically.
I must have missed a previous discussion on this and would like to read it, because it is not clear to me yet that that is the case. I want to finish going through your synthesis first, but then I want to go through your argument why you think logic precludes the possibility of materialism from ever being able to account for consciousness and intelligence. And remember I, along with most theorists I have read, do not believe consciousness is self-reflexive, like a camera taking a picture of itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 03:15 PM
 
39,020 posts, read 10,812,637 times
Reputation: 5080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
I must have missed a previous discussion on this and would like to read it, because it is not clear to me yet that that is the case. I want to finish going through your synthesis first, but then I want to go through your argument why you think logic precludes the possibility of materialism from ever being able to account for consciousness and intelligence. And remember I, along with most theorists I have read, do not believe consciousness is self-reflexive, like a camera taking a picture of itself.
By all means do, but I think where Mystic's logic is wrong is because he is starting from an a priori assumption of First cause (aka God). Applying logical syllogisms to an unjustified logical premise is never going to give a logical answer.

Now the discussion with Mystic and Gaylen on consciousness before time (to put it broadly) left us without any kind of philosophical explanation. But the fact is that nobody really has any idea what we are dealing with and to start building philosophical constructs on unknowns is shaky grounds indeed to start demanding that a consciousness or 'desire', as I recall the term was, is necessary as a predicate to any discussion logical, philosophical or indeed scientific.

The most we could say (I would say the logical position is) is that we don't know and we can make no assumptions about what was or was not there before anything was.

That leaves a Consciousness as a possibility, including a possible 'god' (as distinct from a logically impossible one, if I follow your thought correctly). I don't actually mind the idea. I don't yet believe in one, but I accept that there is no evidence either way, expect that I do not see the spoor of any god, so it has to be a bit Deist - which is suspicious.

The activist part of my atheism is directed against personal gods, religions and Holy Books, and that is rather a different matter. There is too much water under the bridge for anything to change my mind on that. As I remarked elsewhere. it i like someone asking me 'What would it take to convince you that the sun and planets revolved around the earth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top