This is not directly in line with the discussion at the moment, but to an atheist, is there a difference, a distinction, between “faith” and “religion”.
It seems like the invective against organized religion involves a religion’s ability to use the power of the state as a means to accomplish that religion’s own ends. It’s my understanding that it is the use of coercive power that atheists / atheist libertarians object to. Is “faith” just as objectionable? Is “faith” also “fraudulent” in the way Willblake is using the term?
Willblake, I’ll ask you directly: Do you think “faith” is fraudulent in the same manner that you discuss religion as being fraudulent?
No. I explained this up thread. Negative proof, is when you use the absence of proof, to disprove something. For example, Alex Jones can’t prove that aliens from the planet poptart run the US government. Therefore it is untrue. Or, no one has ever seen a black swan, therefore black swans do not exist. Or, Christians can’t prove the existence of God, therefore God does not exist.
Those are negative proofs. They are logical fallacies.
If you want to prove something doesn’t exist, you need to assert a positive which eliminates other contradictory positives. How you prove God doesn’t exist (in this discussion) is up to whoever makes that claim. But they can’t use a lack of evidence as proof. That is a logical fallacy. It is an error in reasoning.
The only way to prove someone has committed a crime is to show positive proof he committed it. That is why the burden of proof is always on the accuser (something Will Blake is struggling to comprehend).
I don’t understand any of this. My skepticism is completely irrelevant to the topics of logic, or atheism/theism. I am skeptical of anyone who claims to be an atheist because atheism is scientifically true, when I know that is an assertion, and not a proof itself. That doesn’t mean I don’t have an inclination the atheists are right, but I sure as hell can’t prove it, and at this time, neither have they.
I think your issue with my position is that you misunderstand the basis of the negative proof fallacy, and my posts about proving negatives probably didn’t help clarify it.
Aristotle and the law of non-contradiction, law of identity, etc. are rolling over in their graves. I haven’t been following this thread otherwise, so my apologies for the interjection =)
LibertyStudent, the expression of your ideas has sadly been hampered by using ‘negative proof’ as the label for the fallacy you highlight. Since ‘negative proof’s’ are established terminology for quite other things, I think you refer to Argument from ignorance fallacies.
I hope this might help people see where people are coming from. Though LibertyStudent has made his position very clear with his most recent posts, I just feel that ‘negative proof’ as a phrase obfuscates rather than illuminates in this matter.
The confusion can actually be seen by going to the argument from ignorance section on the wiki, and seeing that people looking for ‘negative proof’ get directed there, even when the first sentence of ‘proof of impossibility’ entry lists negative proof as a synonym.
Indeed I am, and I linked to it many posts back, however telling people they are arguing from ignorance isn’t conducive to having a discussion. That fallacy is poorly named, probably by some egghead with no friends.
“Carl Sagan, famously, criticized the practice by referring to it as “impatience with ambiguity” and pointing out that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.”
As an aside, I find it interesting how uncomfortable people become when their own sense of logic is shown to be based on less than logical premises. I know I went through that for at least 2 years before I could come to terms with my lack of knowledge and how most of my decisions to act are leaps of faith, and not the result of my rigorous crunching of all the data.
This awareness is useful when trying to talk to statists. I have made some people enraged by challenging their ideas (peacefully and non-confrontationally) about the warfare or welfare/regulatory state.
It’s not too different from how upset Will Blake has become, to the point of starting to personalize the argument towards me, instead of the topic of discussion. I find when things get that far, it’s better to back off. You can educate the lurkers, but someone emotionally invested in an argument is not going to listen to reason. This is also why I prefer not to promote libertarianism exclusively with gun in the room arguments, because they are guilt trips, and not an appeal to reason.
Aliens and swans are at least logically valid, though. It doesn’t matter if we’ve seen them or not. There is nothing illogical about having an alien body or being a bird and and ‘existing’. Both are always perfectly possible since no one says aliens or swans aren’t made of matter and exist simultaneously (or something else that makes it impossible). There is no need to point to one in terms of validity.
Both are on a higher level than the claim of theism.
‘Existing’ (or having consciousness) and no material form at the same time = not logically valid ever. Same as giant crying Jesus face outside the atmosphere or a square fitting in a smaller round hole (or finding such a square circle). There can never be evidence that backs up something that is logically invalid. Nor is any evidence ever necessary. Something must be valid first and then true. If it fails validity, it can’t move forward to truth.
Where did you derive the determination that in order to have a consiousness, something has to have a material form?
You’re claiming a lack of evidence as evidence. That is logically invalid.
What is validity? That it does not contradict another proof? Or some aesthetic, like you don’t think it is reasonable? Because the former deals with logic (and I will buy it), the latter with subjective values.
If you can prove that something cannot exist (have consciouness) and no material form, I am happy to accept that, although I am not sure it passes the test of falsifying God.