Is absence of proof, proof of absence? Do religious people have an advantage in terms of proof?

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 68
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
I hope IlDiavolo  takes up his brilliant thread again once he has time to researched further.
Well, there are lot of things to discuss, but most of this information comes from what the ETs communicated to the contactees. I don't know if I have to talk about it because it's really far fetched even to me that I'm really open minded. It's like this ETs are releasing all what they know just in this very moment of shift. Maybe it's a kind of preparation for humanity, or a way to trick us... Lol.
I have addressed your post  above here on your other thread where I believe it has more relevance. Please take the time to read it, D

#32
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
"Do you pray to Zeus? Thor? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I'm guessing you don't. If not why not? Have you proven they don't exist?"

Simple answer off the top is I never looked into those first two figures. The third one I understand is made up by atheists themselves so that takes care of that.

That is my answer. You asked me a question then answered for me.

No my answer is since you asked,I never looked into those first two figures. The third one I understand is made up by atheists





#33
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
So long story short, you can't say whether God is a thing or not.
#34
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
It would be logically incorrect to assume that they dont exist.

I find a more correct position is to admit they can exist, while not acting as if they do exist.
You're not listening to what I'm saying. No one is disputing whether they can exist, I just explained that anything is possible so long as it doesn't contradict itself. When I say we presume non-existence I'm talking about from a practical standpoint, because our beliefs inform our actions.

When someone says "X is not real" or "X exists only in your mind", they're generally not proclaiming to have searched every corner of the universe and to have concluded it's absence. They're simply stating the rational position that follows from a lack of evidence, which is to tentatively take the default position (non-existence) until such time as evidence surfaces for X. 
#35
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
No my answer is since you asked,I never looked into those first two figures. The third one I understand is made up by atheists
They were rhetorical questions, that was obvious.

The third one I understand is made up by atheists themselves so that takes care of that.
Takes care of what? It sounds like you're saying that because atheists made up a monster, that monster therefore is proven to not exist. Which does not logically follow, unless you are simply saying that you accept as your default position until such time as evidence can be shown to the contrary, that it doesn't exist.
#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mall
They're not meant to prove God. According to biblical scripture, God in the son said himself blessed are those who believe and have not seen.

Indeed.   But  "those who believe" is not the same as asking them to prove the existence of the creator that they believe in. Hence their belief is simply faith based.
#37
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Is absence of proof, proof of absence?
It would be a fact of absence, assuming the first half is true.
#38
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,512
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
Don’t you understand? "God" is everything. Nothing is out of "God" . We are part of this "God".
#39
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,601
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Mall

Yes they do. Religious folks have nothing to do with proving anything.  That's why it's called faith, not hard facts.
Do you have faith in Santa Claus?
Topic's author
#40
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
When I say we presume non-existence I'm talking about from a practical standpoint, because our beliefs inform our action
And I am saying its unnecessary and illogical to assume non-existence of that which can exist.

Again, just because something can exist does not mean you have to act as if it certainly exists.

Assuming non-existence without proof is illogical, and doesnt carry any practical benefit.

Not assuming non-existence does not mean assuming existence.
#41
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
its unnecessary and illogical to assume non-existence of that which can exist.
Not only is it logical, it is necessary.

You are confusing very different things. An assumption is not an assertion, it is a position one takes out of practical necessity so that we can function. I for example have no evidence for or against the existence of Zeus, that doesn't change the fact that I do have to decide before I go to bed whether I'm going to pray to him or not. That is, I have to decide whether I am going to live my life under the assumption that he doesn't exist, or the assumption that he does. Those are my only two options, and that is the case regardless of whether we're talking about a god, Bigfoot, or the Easter bunny.

There is nothing about a default position that requires us to commit to that position. Think of a video game - you cannot play the game without settings so it comes with a menu for you to adjust as you wish. Absent any changes, the default settings apply. It's not anything you decided or perhaps even thought about, it's just a starting point for which you cannot play the game without.

Again, just because something can exist does not mean you have to act as if it certainly exists.
Certainty has nothing to do with this conversation, that's just a distraction.
Topic's author
#42
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
That is, I have to decide whether I am going to live my life under the assumption that he doesn't exist, or the assumption that he does. Those are my only two options
The other option is to assume that state of his existence is unknown, which is the truth.

Being unknown, you dont have to pray to him.
Topic's author
#43
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
it is a position one takes out of practical necessity so that we can function
I dont think one has to assume non-existence to be able to function.

You can assume that Zeus's existence is unknown, and still decide not to pray to him.

There are unlimited options of Gods, so even if they all can exist, praying to all is impossible.

So we can conclude that praying is a waste of time, because there is practically no chance of guessing the right God.

And there is even an option of God who punishes those who pray.
#44
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@FLRW
Sure. You and me both. Just call me Santa Claus.
#45
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
No I don't. Do you understand what a thing is?

Let me be more specific than that. A physical thing. 

Saying God is everything, you're talking about pantheism. 

I thought I specifically mentioned the spirit of God.
#46
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
I don't believe any other type of belief exists. Meaning you believe in something because of evidence, no. You just know something exists based on it.

So belief and faith based without evidence, that's goes without saying.
#47
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
"They were rhetorical questions, that was obvious."

I understand the apprehension in actually getting an individual's answer instead.

"Takes care of what? It sounds like you're saying that because atheists made up a monster, that monster therefore is proven to not exist. Which does not logically follow, unless you are simply saying that you accept as your default position until such time as evidence can be shown to the contrary, that it doesn't exist."

So you mean to tell me that I can make up a FALSE story and a true replicant of it could actually exist in the world somewhere.

Are you chalking it up to possible coincidence scenarios?
#48
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
There are unlimited options of Gods, so even if they all can exist, praying to all is impossible.
Which is exactly why assuming non-existence is the only logical default position.

You can assume that Zeus's existence is unknown, and still decide not to pray to him.
As I have explained repeatedly already, an assumption is not an assertion. You continue to confuse two very different things.

Let's try this; if a 5 year old asked you whether Freddy Krueger was real, what would you say and how confident in your answer would you be?
#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
So you mean to tell me that I can make up a FALSE story and a true replicant of it could actually exist in the world somewhere.
Your question is incoherent - If the story is false it cannot also be true.

But in writing this you inadvertently made my point. You assumed at the outset that the story you were making up was in fact false without any evidence and despite the fact that any story one can make up is possible (unless it's internally contradictory).
Topic's author
#50
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Which is exactly why assuming non-existence Isa the only logical default position
Thats an assumption.

The idea that something doesnt exist until proof shows up is contradictive, as something first needs to exist for there to be any possible proof of it.

The logical default position is "unknown", because it isnt known.

And you dont need to pray to Zeus because of too many options being available, which even when considered possible or unknown, dont lead to conclusion that you have to pick one of them as existing and all the others as not.

"Unknown" does not lead to conclusion that you should pray to Zeus or choose some of the unknown options as real.

So if "unknown" has no bad consequences to it, it is both practical and logical default position.

As I have explained repeatedly already, an assumption is not an assertion. You continue to confuse two very different things.
Thats the problem. You want to use assumption as logical position, where something without proof of being true or high probability of being true cannot be at the same time a logical choice.
Topic's author
#51
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Let's try this; if a 5 year old asked you whether Freddy Krueger was real, what would you say and how confident in your answer would you be?
A simple honest answer of "I dont know" solves those situations and doesnt even take effort.

#52
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,512
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
No I don't. Do you understand what a thing is?

Let me be more specific than that. A physical thing. 

Saying God is everything, you're talking about pantheism. 

I thought I specifically mentioned the spirit of God.
I'm talking to you in a scientific way. You are asking me about the spirit but this is not a "thing", it's an abstract concept. Spirit is what we understand as consciousness.

And yes, "God" or "the primary source" is everything, there is no other logical response. Is there?
#53
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mall
I don't believe any other type of belief exists. Meaning you believe in something because of evidence, no. You just know something exists based on it.

So belief and faith based without evidence, that's goes without saying.

Yes,  you would say that for the simple reason that it is easier for you to conflate the two in the belief that it offers logical reason for your faith.
One can have good reason to believe something . I believe I will be going to the pub tomorrow because I have been there on many occasion, I know it exists.   And I know it sells beer because that is what I buy and have bought when I am there and I have wobbled  home from drinking beer from the place on may occasion, and are all logical reasons for my belief.  It takes no faith whatsoever.




#54
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
The logical default position is "unknown", because it isnt known.
You are not listening to what I am saying.

An assumption is not a belief. "I believe John is telling the truth" is very different from "I assume John is telling the truth"

The former is a conclusion one has reached. The latter is not. The latter is instead a position one would take as a matter of practical necessity because they had to decide how to treat John's statement.

There is a middle ground between believing X vs believing X's negation (not X). That is: one could... not believe X.

Assumptions are an entirely different thing. You claim one can 'assume X is unknown'. In some contexts this would be a coherent statement, not in the context of this conversation. What you are saying here amounts to 'one can assume to not make an assumption'. That's not coherent as it is logically contradictory.

An assumption is by definition, the taking of a position.

The idea that something doesnt exist until proof shows up is contradictive
This is not even close to anything I've said. We're not talking about the actual truth value of a proposition, we're talking how we treat the proposition when we don't have an answer

A simple honest answer of "I dont know" solves those situations and doesnt even take effort.
Now you're just being brazenly dishonest. No reasonable person would tell a child when asked that they "don't know" if Freddy Krueger, or Lord Voldemort, or Thanos, etc. is real.

#55
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It must be handy having neverending time to find a god and bring him in for verification. 

Its almost like ummmm ,  the theists started a game. ( religies ) 
Of Which they don't even play anymore.  Ie  ( proof of gods exists ) 
Theists don't search for god.
They just go with it. 

No but ,
imagine something ya can't ever prove.
andddddddddd
" Putting" it as the most important thing everrrrrr. 
Thats bloody silly. 

See I to like to live life dangerously.  
But thats fucking mental. 


Oh Unlesssssss ,
you've actually like" meet" god and he told you what religion to join . 
If thats the case then . 
You
Are
Correct.  

But.
But. 
Ya not hey? 

It makes ya  wonder. 
What else is it you believe so so much in but couldn't even start to prove. 

Religious people do have advantage in terms of proof , 

As It is difficult proving unicorns don't exist.  


A question.  
How long do ya think it takes , ( Proving god exists ) ? 
Like.
How long do you give ones self to , ( prove god exists.) 
1 mirron badillian years. 

It fuckin seems like it. 

I will except.  
Over proof absinthe as proof god exists.

But not a big bunch of nothing . 









#56
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
You have to have faith that you'll being going anywhere tomorrow. Why?

You have absolutely no evidence that you'll even wake up tomorrow. Now people don't like the idea that somethings you're just going to have to believe in. Just the way it is. Nothing wrong with having hope when it keeps you going on the right path.
#57
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't know. We're talking two different lanes. You're in the logic science, I'm talking what was before all that existed yes.
#58
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
"Your question is incoherent - If the story is false it cannot also be true."

My point exactly. You indirectly answered the question even with just trying to critique it.

An example of what you said, the so called flying spaghetti monster.

"But in writing this you inadvertently made my point. You assumed at the outset that the story you were making up was in fact false without any evidence and despite the fact that any story one can make up is possible (unless it's internally contradictory)."

i.e. , the flying spaghetti monster.

But to bring it back to my main point. Things exist regardless if they have been proven to me .


#59
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
Things exist regardless if they have been proven to me .
Strawman. Scroll up and read post 54. 
#60
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
Ok well as long as you agree with that, very good. See I don't have to argue when I find agreement.

Very good.