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.
I know this is going nowhere when the best you have to lead with is a baseless insult. Don't worry, though, I don't exactly see you as a authority on intelligence, so your judgement here is pretty meaningless to me.
Quote:
The Logical Form given is not the only one for this Fallacy.
If you notice...in the example immediately following...it shows Person#1 asking a question--Person#2 Remaining silent and offering no evidence--Then Person#1 drawing a possibly false conclusion based upon the lack of evidence.
Yep, it's an example of using lack of evidence as a reason to accept a claim. Which atheists do this again? None of them that I've seen. There's a big difference between "You won't defend yourself so you must be guilty" and "there's no reason to believe something therefore I'll withhold belief". The fallacy you're pointing to describes the first, while the second is just a reasonable skeptical way to approach various unsupported claims.
I know this is going nowhere when the best you have to lead with is a baseless insult. Don't worry, though, I don't exactly see you as a authority on intelligence, so your judgement here is pretty meaningless to me.
Yep, it's an example of using lack of evidence as a reason to accept a claim. Which atheists do this again? None of them that I've seen. There's a big difference between "You won't defend yourself so you must be guilty" and "there's no reason to believe something therefore I'll withhold belief". The fallacy you're pointing to describes the first, while the second is just a reasonable skeptical way to approach various unsupported claims.
Look KC, I researched the heck out of that Logical Fallacy...it includes A LOT of forms and examples.
The most common one I found is actually, "To form a conclusion based upon a lack of historical documentation (past written evidence of observation)"...to go with the many others.
In that example...no claim was made...a question was asked (Where are my keys?). Then, based upon no evidence (silence), a conclusion is drawn. Your analysis of the example is flawed.
There was a really good definition I found that was the most simple and all-encompassing that explained it: Argumentum e Silentio (Argument from silence)
This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is based on the silence of the opponent, failing to give proof, and/or based on "lack of evidence".
It's not JUST, "Using a lack of evidence to accept a claim", or, "Silence provides verification of a claim"
As you can see...It's also, "Making a determination or basing a conclusion upon a lack of evidence or proof.
Obvious why that is a Logical Fallacy...lack of evidence doesn't equate to evidence.
This is the CORE of the typical Atheist Argument: Since there is no evidence of/for GOD(s)...we determine/conclude no GOD(s) exist.
THAT is how this particular Logical Fallacy is being employed in this case.
As you know...I'm a big fan of Logical Fallacies. I endorse them...and use them.
They only fail in Pedigree Logic...and lack of a certain true guarantee, does not mean a necessary false one. The conclusion could still be true.
So I figure...What the heck?...NOTHING is infallible...so why short-leash my arguments by limiting them to just those that comport to those parameters?
ANYWAY...the base Atheist argument of concluding no GOD(s) based on lack of evidence of/for GOD(s) is a Logical Fallacy.
And as respects those that are always calling, "Logical Fallacy! Logical Fallacy!"...I will hold them to the standard they demand from others.
Look KC, I researched the heck out of that Logical Fallacy...it includes A LOT of forms and examples.
The most common one I found is actually, "To form a conclusion based upon a lack of historical documentation (past written evidence of observation)"...to go with the many others.
In that example...no claim was made...a question was asked (Where are my keys?). Then, based upon no evidence (silence), a conclusion is drawn. Your analysis of the example is flawed.
There was a really good definition I found that was the most simple and all-encompassing that explained it: Argumentum e Silentio (Argument from silence)
This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is based on the silence of the opponent, failing to give proof, and/or based on "lack of evidence".
It's not JUST, "Using a lack of evidence to accept a claim", or, "Silence provides verification of a claim"
As you can see...It's also, "Making a determination or basing a conclusion upon a lack of evidence or proof.
Obvious why that is a Logical Fallacy...lack of evidence doesn't equate to evidence.
This is the CORE of the typical Atheist Argument: Since there is no evidence of/for GOD(s)...we determine/conclude no GOD(s) exist.
THAT is how this particular Logical Fallacy is being employed in this case.
As you know...I'm a big fan of Logical Fallacies. I endorse them...and use them.
They only fail in Pedigree Logic...and lack of a certain true guarantee, does not mean a necessary false one. The conclusion could still be true.
So I figure...What the heck?...NOTHING is infallible...so why short-leash my arguments by limiting them to just those that comport to those parameters?
ANYWAY...the base Atheist argument of concluding no GOD(s) based on lack of evidence of/for GOD(s) is a Logical Fallacy.
And as respects those that are always calling, "Logical Fallacy! Logical Fallacy!"...I will hold them to the standard they demand from others.
You forget an important part of the atheist argument: "Against prevailing evidence", which is not always enumerated, but only assumed. Lack of evidence exclusively is not a good reason to reject a claim fully, but when the claim is asserted contrary to current prevailing evidence, rejecting a claim because of a lack of evidence is indeed valid.
This is the CORE of the typical Atheist Argument: Since there is no evidence of/for GOD(s)...we determine/conclude no GOD(s) exist.
THAT is how this particular Logical Fallacy is being employed in this case.
No. Here is the CORE of the typical atheist argument:
Sincere there is no evidence of/for god(s), we do not conclude that gods exist.
You forget an important part of the atheist argument: "Against prevailing evidence", which is not always enumerated, but only assumed. Lack of evidence exclusively is not a good reason to reject a claim fully, but when the claim is asserted contrary to current prevailing evidence, rejecting a claim because of a lack of evidence is indeed valid.
There is not any "current prevailing evidence" that would support the Atheist position of "No GOD(s) exist".
To do that...you would need to "Prove a negative"...and that can't be done.
Let's hear this contrary "current prevailing evidence" that would invalidate my "GOD(s) Exist" conclusion.
We all know what the scientific method is:
The steps:
Ask a question
Do background research
Construct a hypothesis
Test hypothesis with experiment
Analyze the data
Draw a conclusion
Communicate results
Would someone please show me through the scientific method how God does not exist, taking me through each of the steps?
Clearly what this thread proves is that putting 'scientific method' in the same sentence as 'god' and pretending there is any relationship between the two is nonsensical, since there has been barely a mention of anything remotely scientific in the entire thread.
The original post went off track from around page 2.
So in answer to the OP, no, there is nobody here that can show you using the scientific method how God does not exist, since clearly one has no relationship to the other.
Any scientist will tell you that science does not seek to try to disprove god.
Then, what have you figured...if you "do not conclude"?
By that..you haven't made any determination at all. THAT'S the big, BIG difference.
Atheists, by and large, have not made the claim that there are no gods. We just haven't seen compelling evidence to convince us that it or they exist. Therefore, we don't believe.
There's no need to figure anything at all in relation to gods. There is no need to make a determination. In the face of new evidence, that could change.
There is not any "current prevailing evidence" that would support the Atheist position of "No GOD(s) exist".
To do that...you would need to "Prove a negative"...and that can't be done.
Let's hear this contrary "current prevailing evidence" that would invalidate my "GOD(s) Exist" conclusion.
First we must know to which God you are referring and with what attributes. Each are disproved in different ways. For example, if you claim that Thor exists and he has the attribute of creating lightening and thunder, we can disprove his existence by demonstrating how the difference in electrical potential between clouds and/or ground causes lightening and thunder.
I've only read part of this thread, but there seems to be a breakdown in communication regarding the rules of logic. I'm just going to back the discussion up one step, then make a run for it.
In logic and science, the burden of proof is always on the affirmative statement. The absence of the affirmative is generally called the "null hypothesis."
When we are talking about god, the affirmative is generally "god exists." The burden of proof then falls to the person making the affirmative statement, and the null hypothesis ("god does not exist") is assumed in the absence of such proof. I think that's what most of the atheists here are saying.
If one were to say "I can demonstrate to you that god does NOT exist," this would become an affirmative and the burden of proof would fall to it. The null hypothesis would be accepted in the absence of such proof, specifically "You cannot demonstrate to me that god does NOT exist." That said, trying to prove the absence of something would itself be logically flawed.
I'm not picking teams here, I'm just asking everyone to take a step back.
All of this being said, does the fact that you cannot prove something scientifically (e.g. god) mean that it does not exist? That is a different question. Science necessarily deals with the measurable, naturalistic world. I don't think there are many Christians who would argue that god is measurable, and certainly he would be supernatural rather than natural. So while specific claims could be scientifically investigated (e.g. that statue is weeping blood) the concept of god itself somewhat defies scientific inquiry. I think the atheist perspective is that they will not put 'faith' in something that is not subject to scientific inquiry or which makes claims that scientific investigation has not upheld (e.g. they were not able to get the statue to weep blood under laboratory conditions). This is not as much of a roadblock for the theist, which is ultimately the heart of the dispute.
Therefore, to the OP:
Can the scientific method disprove the existence of god?
Certainly not, for more than one reason as noted above. 1 - You cannot prove a negative. 2 - God is neither measurable nor naturalistic.
Does science support the existence of god?
I know of no direct scientific evidence for a god as depicted in most mainstream religions.
Does the fact that science does not support god mean that god does not exist?
That is up to you to decide for yourself.
Time for me to duck and cover.
Thanks.
Last edited by Hyker; 11-15-2013 at 01:22 PM..
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.
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.
Does Scientific Method Prove God's Nonexistence?
