God

The notion you cannot prove a negative is absurd because logic is based on proving negatives.

What people are referring to is modal logic, the logic of possibility.
Is it possible God exists? First define "God" and list its properties. Then see if there is any logical contradiction.
 
BidenPresident said:
He is wrong. You are confusing empirical validation with the use of logic. Many do this.
Click to expand...

No, unfortunately I am not.

There's a great write up HERE

Perhaps it explains it better than I have:

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist. (ibid)
Click to expand...

Now the key here is that we are not simply talking about "there is no orange on the table" but rather that it have a universal or all-encompassing aspect. Like No S is P. Universally in order to make the claim that no instance of "S" is ever "P" we would have to be able to experience all instances of "S" in order to make that claim.

Hope that helps clarify my point a bit better.
 
BidenPresident said:
The notion you cannot prove a negative is absurd because logic is based on proving negatives.
Click to expand...

But we aren't just talking about any negative. We are talking explicitly about universal claims. ALL instances of "S" are "non-P" means you have to have information about every single instance of "S".
 
Quincunx said:
You mistake my respect for Christians for my lack of respect for your version of whatever "faith" you have. I've seen enough of your fruit to know the type of tree you are. (Another Bible reference you may not get)
Click to expand...

and you mistake what you have, as respect for others...your statement was laughable.......cope.....,
 
Quincunx said:
Wrong.

There are two general classes. One group makes the universal negative claim "There is no God" which is very hard to justify logically. The other group merely fails to believe in God. That is a very important yet subtle difference you may not understand due to your lack of philosophy training.
Click to expand...

those who deny are atheists.......those who will not choose are agnostics......then there are those who do not even think about it.......those are the apathetic.......that is the fastest growing group......
 
Cypress said:
I don't see how you missed there are two different and contradictory creation stories in Genesis, right on the first page of the Old Testament, if you were reading it at a middle school level of reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Genesis 1:1 is generically distinct from Genesis 1:2......Genisis 2 is not on the first page.......there are three descriptions in Genesis and a fourth in the book of Job.....
 
BidenPresident said:
None of that made any sense.
Click to expand...

Everything I wrote there...made sense.


You should not refer to logic when you know nothing.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that anyone with whom you are in disagreement...is stupid, ignorant, or a know-nothing. Bad habit. It sets you up for failure.

The college I attended required several logic courses...and I aced them.

YOU have lots of problem with logic.

The first thing you learn in basic logic is that proving negatives is the foundation of our logic.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong about it being the first thing...but what I write about proving negatives is spot on. If you do not understand that, your deficiencies in logic are holding you back.
 
Quincunx said:
No, unfortunately I am not.

There's a great write up HERE

Perhaps it explains it better than I have:



Now the key here is that we are not simply talking about "there is no orange on the table" but rather that it have a universal or all-encompassing aspect. Like No S is P. Universally in order to make the claim that no instance of "S" is ever "P" we would have to be able to experience all instances of "S" in order to make that claim.

Hope that helps clarify my point a bit better.
Click to expand...

Good luck with explaining anything to him/her...whatever.

He is about has hard-headed as they come...and I know something about being had-headed.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The fact that nobody can explain how the Big Bang came into being or how life simply started happening.

Both issues requires science to say they just magically appeared but isn’t that exactly what God did, just magically made them appear?

Here is another way to look at it.

Get a mason jar and remove all matter from inside, every particle, molecule, and atom and set the jar on your table.

Now how long will it take for matter to just start appearing in the jar? Well the answer is never.

This means something has to create matter out of nothing and what can do that other than a God?
Click to expand...

The Big Bang was a reaction to Lucifer's rebellion.
 
Quincunx said:
Now the key here is that we are not simply talking about "there is no orange on the table" but rather that it have a universal or all-encompassing aspect. Like No S is P. Universally in order to make the claim that no instance of "S" is ever "P" we would have to be able to experience all instances of "S" in order to make that claim.

Hope that helps clarify my point a bit better.
Click to expand...

No. We are discussing the statement: God exists.

I fail to see what universality has to do with this.
 
Quincunx said:
I had rather hoped you would understand the example I gave in good faith. As another has pointed out, people could drive a Viper into Florida without registration. I often drive my car into Washington without registering it there.
Click to expand...

No, I am quite serious. You simply do not understand logic. Logical impossibility has nothing to do with empirically performable.
 
Cypress said:
Not a single piece of tangible physical evidence supports string theory. It is just a consequence of theoretical mathematics.

Maybe the multiverse as a concept lies in higher mathematics, rather than in any tangible evidence
Click to expand...

No tangible evidence. It's a theory. OTOH, some people just say "God's will" and leave it at that. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top