Is it?

[Bri]

Are you sure you would classify the second (the bolded) as unfalsifiable? Why?

Because if your god is inconsequential and immaterial, one cannot prove that your god doesn't exist, just as one cannot prove that it does exist.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Bri - I don't hold all opinions in equal regard. Some are better than others.

I don't believe I said that all opinions are equal. However, when it comes to opinions, which opinion is "better" is usually itself a matter of opinion.

Your religious beliefs, for example, I characterize as 'woo' - I find them to be rank superstition.

What religious beliefs would that be?

I'm not interested in engaging you in discussion - I've read many threads in which you attempt philosophy, and don't wish to encourage more.

Fair enough, I suppose. I don't recall ever attempting philosophy, other than to point out that these sorts of discussions have been going on for thousands of years so they're nothing new.

I just wish to point out that your beliefs and 'meta-beliefs' are not agreed upon by all, and that your arguments are not persuasive.

I don't recall ever saying that my opinions are agreed upon by all (if they were, they wouldn't be opinions).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Sorry for not being more clear. It was supposed to be a defense, not an indictment.

Thanks, slingblade. I knew what you meant!

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

Because if your god is inconsequential and immaterial, one cannot prove that your god doesn't exist, just as one cannot prove that it does exist.

-Bri

Hm...

If you assert that an inc-imm-being DOES NOT exist, you can falsify it, by proving somehow the existance of an inc-imm-being.

 

[Bri]

You cannot prove the existence of an inconsequential being. Nor can you disprove the existence of an inconsequential being.

Disproving either assertion requires proving the other.

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

Is not saying that anti-democratic?

No. Ideas don't hold political positions.

I'm sure you've heard it said that one is entitled to his or her own opinion. But this entitlement doesn't render every opinion automatically right, sound, valid, or worthwhile. Opinions and ideas are generally based on information. If one's info is less than ideal, one's opinion will be the same.

Opinions can be wrong. But one is still entitled to be wrong, if that's what one wants.

For instance, based on information from my personal experience, I could form the opinion that all men are pedophiles. Is my opinion correct?

Hm...

If you assert that an inc-imm-being DOES NOT exist, you can falsify it, by proving somehow the existance of an inc-imm-being.

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist."

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist."

So, no.

 

[drkitten]

• The belief that your god exists.
• The belief that your god does not exist.

Perhaps a better example (since there's less metaphysical baggage) would be

• Allosaurus could count to four.
• Allosaurus could not count to four.

Counting capacity in non-verbal animals (including small children) is relatively easy to test in the lab, and probably thousands of psych students have run such experiments as part of their degrees. But such experiments require living animals to run. Since Allosaurus is dead, extinct,and unavailable (and any rational observer would assumethat it always will be so), we cannot in principle run the necessary experiments.

Ergo, these two statements are contradictory -- but both unfalsifiable.

 

[Bri]

So, no.

I think JetLeg is correct in saying that IF one could prove the proposition P (an inconsequential being exists), that would disprove the proposition not P (an inconsequential being does not exist).

The problem is the "IF" in the above sentence, since the propositions P and not P are both unfalsifiable in the case of an inconsequential being.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

Is not saying that anti-democratic?

The world is not democratic. I teach for a living, and part of my job is to recognize which opinions of my students are wrong and correct them. For example, if your opinion is that three apples added to a pile of five apples yields a pile of thirty-five apples, your opinion is wrong.

 

[drkitten]

I think JetLeg is correct in saying that IF one could prove the proposition P (an inconsequential being exists), that would disprove the proposition not P (an inconsequential being does not exist).

Yes. And similarly, if one could prove the not P, that would immediately disprove P. The statement "I have no full-grown Siberian tigers in my sock drawer" is immediately disprovable despite its superficially negative form.

The problem is the "IF" in the above sentence, since the propositions P and not P are both unfalsifiable in the case of an inconsequential being.

THAT, however, is an assumption that I don't think JetLeg (yet) accepts. And I think on this point I agree with him; I have no qualms with disproving an inconsistent inconsequential being, for instance. If you tell me that God is a hatless inconsequential being wearing a fedora, I think the confusion over His headgear is enough to disprove that particular instantiation of the Divine.

 

[Bri]

Perhaps a better example (since there's less metaphysical baggage) would be

• Allosaurus could count to four.
• Allosaurus could not count to four.

...

Ergo, these two statements are contradictory -- but both unfalsifiable.

Good example, although it can be argued that because we know its brain size and can compare it to similar creatures alive today that there is evidence that allosaurus could not count.

JetLeg's god is inconsequential, which means that it can in no way affect the world, which means that we cannot have any evidence whatsoever of its existence or non-existence. Therefore, it would be impossible to provide any evidence that such a being exists, nor would it be possible to provide evidence that such a being doesn't exist.

The exception would be that if JetLeg were to provide additional attributes that were self-contradictory (such as all-powerful but inconsequential), then I suppose we could prove that it cannot exist as described.

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

Heh, yes, but JL's "if" is the sticking point. However, concedo.

 

[Bri]

And I think on this point I agree with him; I have no qualms with disproving an inconsistent inconsequential being, for instance. If you tell me that God is a hatless inconsequential being wearing a fedora, I think the confusion over His headgear is enough to disprove that particular instantiation of the Divine.

Thank you for correcting my statement. The being as currently described by JetLeg is unfalsifiable. It is possible that JetLeg might go on to add attributes to the being that would make it logically self-contradictory and therefore could be proven to not exist. But JetLeg will never be able to prove that his inconsequential being exists, regardless of any additional attributes.

I suppose to be entirely accurate, I should have said that it is possible to describe an inconsequential being which cannot be proven to exist nor can be proven to not exist.

ETA: As slingblade pointed out, the "IF" is still the sticking point.

-Bri

 

[Complexity]

Is not saying that anti-democratic?

Yes.

 

[JetLeg]

What I said was that our experience with thought is that it seems to require spatial boundaries.

Ok, but why do you think so?


For example, you have an idea that Randi exists, though you never saw him. You must have a body to think this idea, so far I agree. An idea of a "being" includes a body. But the idea itself, I don't think of it as something with spatial bounds... Can you measure the velocity of ideas? It sounds absurd?

 

[JetLeg]

Yes.

Alright, so are you anti-democratic? What is your preferred system?

 

[cyborg]

Reason is cold - emotion is warm. If you reject emotion, and act on reason, then you are a cold person.

Emotion is built on the cold reason of atoms.

If synthetic warmth does not satisfy you then you will be doomed to search for something that does not exist.

 

[cyborg]

Alright, so are you anti-democratic? What is your preferred system?

Democracy makes no promise about the wisdom of rule: it just makes a promise that the people will rule.

Preferring one system or another is really quite irrelevent.

 

[JetLeg]

Perhaps a better example (since there's less metaphysical baggage) would be

• Allosaurus could count to four.
• Allosaurus could not count to four.

Counting capacity in non-verbal animals (including small children) is relatively easy to test in the lab, and probably thousands of psych students have run such experiments as part of their degrees. But such experiments require living animals to run. Since Allosaurus is dead, extinct,and unavailable (and any rational observer would assumethat it always will be so), we cannot in principle run the necessary experiments.

Ergo, these two statements are contradictory -- but both unfalsifiable.

I think that there is a need for different categories of unfalsifiablity.


[*] Allosaurus could count to four.
[*] Allosaurus could not count to four.

Are unfalsifiable.

But

[*] Allosaurus could count to 599853932.
[*] Allosaurus could not count to 599853932.

Are also unfalsififiable because we cannot test a living one. But, infering from the animals we know, we can say that most of them don't count to large numbers, morever, there is no reason to assume this specific number.

So, even though four and 599853932 are both unfalisifiables, one of them is more credible by the other. How would you explain it?

 

[cyborg]

How would you explain it?

A priori knowledge about biological reasoning systems.

Or put more simply: those statements would not jive with what we already know about brains.