The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

---The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source
---As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other. Source
---The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. Source

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

---The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. Source
---It is this extraordinary instance of apparent fine tuning, and others, which has brought the worlds most respected cosmologists, including Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, & Andrei Linde, to recognize not only the legitimacy of the phenomenon, but the necessity to explain it. Source

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. Source

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Source
---An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Source

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts. For the sake of intellectual honesty (a virtue that is desperately needed on this forum) theists need to admit that these facts do not decisively prove God's existence. They only lend support to the proposition of God and the God hypothesis is only one of many explanations that accounts for these facts. In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

Question: Are the four items listed above facts? If so, how much credibility do they give the God hypothesis and Christian theism?

[Danmark]

Wow, it doesn't seem like you understand the point of my post or the thrust of my argument. In which case you should ask for clarification instead of wasting my time by creating these huge straw men. Dianaiad claimed that it was not logically possible to prove a negative. I proved her wrong....

You can prove a negative, so dianaiad is wrong and you are wrong again!

You are guilty of the sin of 'equivocation.' Certainly some 'negatives' can be proved if they are linguistically structured in an appropriate manner, with sufficient qualifications; e.g., "There are no unicorns standing on my right hand at this instant," is a 'negative' and I can prove it since we have set the qualifications so tightly all I have to do is show my right hand.

However, as the website you cite states:

If, on the other hand, "you can't prove a negative" means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true.

It is that latter most folks have in mind when they say, "You can't prove a negative."

Also, when they use that phrase, I think most people may be using the phrase as a short hand way for saying, 'the burden of proof is on he who alleges.'

Going back to "There are no unicorns standing on my right hand at this instant,"
one could respond, "you still cannot prove there are no unicorns standing on your hand, since you may be blind and not have the sense of touch and no one said the unicorns have to be macroscopic."

So we change the qualifiers again, saying, "There are no unicorns standing on my right hand that will show up on a photograph taken with this camera right now.

A clever person may again raise an objection, such as 'you are dreaming when you say you "can't see the unicorn in the photo,"' but again we can simply add another qualifier. With enough imagination and patience I suppose this exercise could go on ad infinitum, but as a practical matter it becomes absurd and boring fairly quickly since I can simply continually refine my 'negative' with additional qualifiers so that it once again meets my terms.

[dianaiad]

.....Based on what? Your incredible depth and breadth of scholarship? Or is it a burning in your bosom?

Moderator Warning


Do not make personal comments, especially when those comments are meant to ridicule.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Star]

However, as the website you cite states:

If, on the other hand, "you can't prove a negative" means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true.

It is that latter most folks have in mind when they say, "You can't prove a negative."

Clearly, this author is saying, of the impossibility of proving negatives beyond a reasonable doubt, "that may, arguably, be true." I find this amusing. WinePusher declared that certain nontheists (and even a fellow theist, Dianalad) are wrong, and used a source that actually contradicts his argument, rather than support it.

If I say there are giant glowing pink unicorns on the moon that are visible with telescopes, we can demonstrate this to be untrue, since no telescopes can see these alleged moon fairies. As you explained, I was able to construct the wording such that it actually can falsified.

However, if I say that there are invisible unicorns on the moon, this will be one negative that's impossible to disprove. My answer to every failed attempt at observing these fairies could be: "But they're invisible!" Or: "You're not looking hard enough!" Or: "You must have faith!" Or, my favorite: "Prove they don't exist!"

[Ooberman]

However, as the website you cite states:

If, on the other hand, "you can't prove a negative" means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true.

It is that latter most folks have in mind when they say, "You can't prove a negative."

Clearly, this author is saying, of the impossibility of proving negatives beyond a reasonable doubt, "that may, arguably, be true." I find this amusing. WinePusher declared that certain nontheists (and even a fellow theist, Dianalad) are wrong, and used a source that actually contradicts his argument, rather than support it.

If I say there are giant glowing pink unicorns on the moon that are visible with telescopes, we can demonstrate this to be untrue, since no telescopes can see these alleged moon fairies. As you explained, I was able to construct the wording such that it actually can falsified.

However, if I say that there are invisible unicorns on the moon, this will be one negative that's impossible to disprove. My answer to every failed attempt at observing these fairies could be: "But they're invisible!" Or: "You're not looking hard enough!" Or: "You must have faith!" Or, my favorite: "Prove they don't exist!"

Exactly. In my "Prove Pixies Don't Exist" thread, I was never offered a method to prove they don't.

Had someone provided one, then we could see if it applies to God.

Winepusher, however, claims a negative can be proven.

Yet, he never offered an argument against Pixies that proves they don't exist.

So, the theist must now claim pixies do exist (since this is what they do with God), and the atheist can sit back, aghast at the horrible crime against Reason.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 143 by WinePusher]

Since management seems to be intent on disrupting, disrailing, and otherwise discouraging any debate which might actually breakout on their debate forum, I have decided that it is time for me to take a break from the forum altogether. Perhaps we can pick up where we left off if and when I decided to return.

[WinePusher]

Wow, it doesn't seem like you understand the point of my post or the thrust of my argument. In which case you should ask for clarification instead of wasting my time by creating these huge straw men. Dianaiad claimed that it was not logically possible to prove a negative. I proved her wrong....

You can prove a negative, so dianaiad is wrong and you are wrong again!

You are guilty of the sin of 'equivocation.' Certainly some 'negatives' can be proved if they are linguistically structured in an appropriate manner, with sufficient qualifications; e.g., "There are no unicorns standing on my right hand at this instant," is a 'negative' and I can prove it since we have set the qualifications so tightly all I have to do is show my right hand.

I listed five negative claims spanning across five academic disciples. A negative claim is indicated by a simple key word: not. There is nothing that says that a negative claim must be 'linguistically structured in an appropriate manner' in order for it to be proven. If it has the word 'not' then it is a negative and it can be proven. I gave five examples:

1. 2+2 does not equal 4
2. Prokaryotic cells do not have a nucleus.
3. Italian is not the current lingua franca (bridge language) of the world.
4. Tariffs do not increase the quantity of imported goods.
5. The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

It is mathematically possible to prove that 2+2 does not equal 4. It is scientifically possible to prove that prokaryotic cells do not have a nucleus. It is linguistically possible to prove that Italian is not the current lingua franca of the world. It is economically possible to prove that tariffs do not increase the quantity of imported goods. It is historically possible to prove that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

As you can see, it is logically possible to prove a negative and there is no need for the claims to be to wordy. Anyone who continues to spew out this nonsense about it being impossible to prove negatives is just wrong, plain and simple.

However, as the website you cite states:

If, on the other hand, "you can't prove a negative" means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true.

It is that latter most folks have in mind when they say, "You can't prove a negative."

I would agree that it is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence with absolute certainty. And to be clear, I was not demanding that any nontheist here prove that God doesn't exist. However, the smart atheists and nontheists on this forum do provide reasons for why they think God's existence is unlikely. They will point out things like the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness, logical contradictions about God, etc. In turn, theists will offer their reasons for why they think God does existence using traditional arguments from ontology, morality, design, the first cause, etc and this makes for a productive debate.

However, there are about one or two users on this forum that do not offer reasons for why they don't accept Christian claims. All they do is issue empty challenges without offering any alternative ideas of their own and this does not make for a productive debate. You said it best:

"What facts do you have" or "prove it" don't advance the argument and don't deserve a response.

Also, when they use that phrase, I think most people may be using the phrase as a short hand way for saying, 'the burden of proof is on he who alleges.'

Yes, but a debate requires an exchange of ideas. The only problem I have is when a 'debater' does not present any original ideas or arguments of his own, even if the burden of proof isn't on him.

[Ooberman]

I would agree that it is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence with absolute certainty.

It's impossible to prove God's existence with ANY kind of certainty.

[WinePusher]

Clearly, this author is saying, of the impossibility of proving negatives beyond a reasonable doubt, "that may, arguably, be true."

You probably missed it, but I listed five negative claims that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. 2+2 does not equal 4
2. Prokaryotic cells do not have a nucleus.
3. Italian is not the current lingua franca (bridge language) of the world.
4. Tariffs do not increase the quantity of imported goods.
5. The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

I find this amusing. WinePusher declared that certain nontheists (and even a fellow theist, Dianalad) are wrong, and used a source that actually contradicts his argument, rather than support it.

First, it doesn't matter that you're an atheist or that dianaiad is a theist. Facts are facts, and the fact is that negative claims and propositions can be proven. Dianaiad said otherwise and she's wrong, you also seem to be saying otherwise and you're also wrong. Second, did you even take any time to actually read the article?

---The fact is, however, that this supposed "law of logic" is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.
---Notice, for a start, that "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bel ... e-negative

This is hilarious. My point is that it is possible to prove a negative and my source clearly supports that. And then you come along and erroneously claim that my source contradicts my point? Please, read the article.

If I say there are giant glowing pink unicorns on the moon that are visible with telescopes, we can demonstrate this to be untrue, since no telescopes can see these alleged moon fairies. As you explained, I was able to construct the wording such that it actually can falsified.

True, some claims are not provable using the current repository of knowledge we have. But the ability to prove a claim does not have anything to do with words, diction or syntax. Rather, a claim (whether it be positive or negative) can be proven if there is sufficient knowledge and/or evidence. But the fact remains, you can prove a negative. So you, dianaiad and anybody else who says otherwise is simply wrong.

[Danmark]

Clearly, this author is saying, of the impossibility of proving negatives beyond a reasonable doubt, "that may, arguably, be true."

You probably missed it, but I listed five negative claims that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. 2+2 does not equal 4
2. Prokaryotic cells do not have a nucleus.
3. Italian is not the current lingua franca (bridge language) of the world.
4. Tariffs do not increase the quantity of imported goods.
5. The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

I find this amusing. WinePusher declared that certain nontheists (and even a fellow theist, Dianalad) are wrong, and used a source that actually contradicts his argument, rather than support it.

First, it doesn't matter that you're an atheist or that dianaiad is a theist. Facts are facts, and the fact is that negative claims and propositions can be proven. Dianaiad said otherwise and she's wrong, you also seem to be saying otherwise and you're also wrong. Second, did you even take any time to actually read the article?

---The fact is, however, that this supposed "law of logic" is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.
---Notice, for a start, that "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bel ... e-negative

This is hilarious. My point is that it is possible to prove a negative and my source clearly supports that. And then you come along and erroneously claim that my source contradicts my point? Please, read the article.

If I say there are giant glowing pink unicorns on the moon that are visible with telescopes, we can demonstrate this to be untrue, since no telescopes can see these alleged moon fairies. As you explained, I was able to construct the wording such that it actually can falsified.

True, some claims are not provable using the current repository of knowledge we have. But the ability to prove a claim does not have anything to do with words, diction or syntax. Rather, a claim (whether it be positive or negative) can be proven if there is sufficient knowledge and/or evidence. But the fact remains, you can prove a negative. So you, dianaiad and anybody else who says otherwise is simply wrong.

No. Not 'hilarious.' You are continuing to engage in equivocation. Many claims can be restated using a negative. That is not the same concept most people intend when they talk about not proving a negative. The author you cite as authority makes the same admission.

[Danmark]

Yes, but a debate requires an exchange of ideas. The only problem I have is when a 'debater' does not present any original ideas or arguments of his own, even if the burden of proof isn't on him.

If the debates here were limited to "original ideas" we probably would have almost no debates. But certainly I agree that the arguments should be thought out, not just repeated as if by rote; that they should be understood by the one who proffers them, as if they were original.