Proving a negative

[Mr.Badham]

If 2 or more unfalsifiable beliefs contradict one another, all could be wrong. All but 1 must be wrong.

If there were 5 unfalsifiable competing beliefs that did not allow for the existence of the others, we would know for a fact that 4 of them must be incorrect.

If someone, then came along, and stated that their belief allows for the existence of some or all of the other beliefs, we would then have to state that there are 6 competing unfalsifiable beliefs, because the first 5 do not allow for the 6th, and if any of the first 5 are correct, the 6th belief would consequently be incorrect. If the 6th unfalsifiable belief were correct, than anyone believing in the first 5 would then be incorrect. Although the 6th allows for the existence of the first 5, only those believing in the 6th unfalsifiable belief would be correct.

I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I am 100% correct. But this is as close as I can come to proving a negative. Does anyone agree that this might be a good starting point?

[ThatGirlAgain]

If 2 or more unfalsifiable beliefs contradict one another, all could be wrong. All but 1 must be wrong.

If there were 5 unfalsifiable competing beliefs that did not allow for the existence of the others, we would know for a fact that 4 of them must be incorrect.

Assuming that the beliefs were sufficiently well defined to avoid ambiguity of interpretation, and barring the existence of a chronosynclastic infundibulum, then at least 4 of the 5 must be incorrect. Agreed.

If someone, then came along, and stated that their belief allows for the existence of some or all of the other beliefs, we would then have to state that there are 6 competing unfalsifiable beliefs, because the first 5 do not allow for the 6th, and if any of the first 5 are correct, the 6th belief would consequently be incorrect. If the 6th unfalsifiable belief were correct, than anyone believing in the first 5 would then be incorrect. Although the 6th allows for the existence of the first 5, only those believing in the 6th unfalsifiable belief would be correct.

I am unclear what you mean by allows for the existence of some or all of the other beliefs. If you mean that the 6th does not contradict one or more of the first 5 but allows them to be true without asserting them, then I do not follow the argument. In this case the 6th could even be unrelated to the first 5, e.g., it is raining when the first 5 are theological in nature.

But if you mean that the 6th actually asserts one or more of the first 5 and those first 5 are truly mutually exclusive, then the or more clause necessarily goes away. It can only assert at most one of them and remain unfalsifiable. Else it is self-contradictory and false.

Or am I missing something?

[McCulloch]

Proving a negative, usually comes as a result of a conditional statement. For example, premise (1): if there was a live adult elephant in my garage, then I would not be able to fit my car there; premise (2): I am able to park my car; conclusion: there are no live adult elephants in my garage.

The difficulty lies in the area of religion. There is no agreed upon statements which start with, "If God exists then ... " where the end condition is something that can be validated to be false. With the possible exception of the problem of evil.

[Mr.Badham]

Assuming that the beliefs were sufficiently well defined to avoid ambiguity of interpretation, and barring the existence of a chronosynclastic infundibulum, then at least 4 of the 5 must be incorrect. Agreed.

Wouldn't "well defined" make them falsifiable? They're unfalsifiable. How well defined could they possibly be.

But if you mean that the 6th actually asserts one or more of the first 5 and those first 5 are truly mutually exclusive, then the or more clause necessarily goes away. It can only assert at most one of them and remain unfalsifiable. Else it is self-contradictory and false.

Or am I missing something?

If it's unfalsifiable, couldn't you claim it to be true on that basis.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Assuming that the beliefs were sufficiently well defined to avoid ambiguity of interpretation, and barring the existence of a chronosynclastic infundibulum, then at least 4 of the 5 must be incorrect. Agreed.

Wouldn't "well defined" make them falsifiable? They're unfalsifiable. How well defined could they possibly be.

By well defined I meant that the several beliefs could be clearly distinguished from each other to avoid any of them to be interpreted as overlapping each other. If they did overlap, they might not be mutually exclusive. That does not necessarily make them falsifiable, just precise.

But if you mean that the 6th actually asserts one or more of the first 5 and those first 5 are truly mutually exclusive, then the or more clause necessarily goes away. It can only assert at most one of them and remain unfalsifiable. Else it is self-contradictory and false.

Or am I missing something?

If it's unfalsifiable, couldn't you claim it to be true on that basis.

Something might be unfalsifiable because no present methodology allows it to be tested. But if it is inherently unfalsifiable , as I assume we mean here, it might be argued that it is neither true nor false but meaningless, since it has no consequences outside of itself. If it did have consequences, it is potentially falsifiable.

There is an invisible, intangible dragon in my closet that is only detectable by me via telepathy. But he never gives me any information, only sings songs that I already know. That is unfalsifiable. Is it necessarily true?

[AquinasD]

We have two recurrent memes that we really shouldn't be stuck on anymore.

First, proving a negative. As already discussed, proving a negative is not impossible. In fact, it isn't even necessarily difficult.

I can prove that there are no square circles. But I won't insult your intelligence to lay out my reasoning.

Proving a negative only requires that the so-discussed object or being has a conditional relationship with some other being or state of affairs. McCulloch already pointed out that they only need to have the form of p --> q, then q would mean p.

Proving the non-existence of God is not that hard; it only needs to be demonstrated that the concept of God is inherently contradictory or that His existence is contradicted by something else we are better aware of. Either an argument from the problem of evil or else arguing that a "unmoved mover" is incoherent would be sufficient to establish God's non-existence. (Of course, there are many different paths that one could take. IMO, I think no conceptual arguments about the incoherence of the nature of God are very good.)

Second, falsifiability. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a proposition being scientifically unfalsifiable; that is, not falsifiable through the application of the scientific method. For instance, we all believe that the scientific method reveals what is the case, do we not? But this fact (that science works) is not, strictly speaking, scientifically falsifiable.

If we mean something else, I cannot pretend to know what that is, since it doesn't seem to mean anything. If it were the case that a proposition is meaningful (i.e. can be thought about) then it follows we are able to imagine what would be the case, were it true (this is just what it is to understand a proposition). If it weren't the case that we could understand the proposition, then it would simply follow that the proposition states nothing that may be the case.

So for propositions of metaphysical import (which will not be scientifically falsifiable), falsifiability applies only insofar as we are able to determine which statements are meaningful and which are not. (And whatever must necessarily be the case, if it can be conceived, is possible; what follows is that any metaphysical proposition which can be understood states something about what must be the case.)

[Mr.Badham]

We have two recurrent memes that we really shouldn't be stuck on anymore.

First, proving a negative. As already discussed, proving a negative is not impossible. In fact, it isn't even necessarily difficult.

I can prove that there are no square circles. But I won't insult your intelligence to lay out my reasoning.

Proving a negative only requires that the so-discussed object or being has a conditional relationship with some other being or state of affairs. McCulloch already pointed out that they only need to have the form of p --> q, then q would mean p.

Proving the non-existence of God is not that hard; it only needs to be demonstrated that the concept of God is inherently contradictory or that His existence is contradicted by something else we are better aware of. Either an argument from the problem of evil or else arguing that a "unmoved mover" is incoherent would be sufficient to establish God's non-existence. (Of course, there are many different paths that one could take. IMO, I think no conceptual arguments about the incoherence of the nature of God are very good.)

Second, falsifiability. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a proposition being scientifically unfalsifiable; that is, not falsifiable through the application of the scientific method. For instance, we all believe that the scientific method reveals what is the case, do we not? But this fact (that science works) is not, strictly speaking, scientifically falsifiable.

If we mean something else, I cannot pretend to know what that is, since it doesn't seem to mean anything. If it were the case that a proposition is meaningful (i.e. can be thought about) then it follows we are able to imagine what would be the case, were it true (this is just what it is to understand a proposition). If it weren't the case that we could understand the proposition, then it would simply follow that the proposition states nothing that may be the case.

So for propositions of metaphysical import (which will not be scientifically falsifiable), falsifiability applies only insofar as we are able to determine which statements are meaningful and which are not. (And whatever must necessarily be the case, if it can be conceived, is possible; what follows is that any metaphysical proposition which can be understood states something about what must be the case.)

Right... I'm not sure what you said there. Ummmm, so would you disagree with my statement if I replaced the numbers with religions or no? I guess that's what I getting at.
It seems to me there is something about the unfalsifiableness that makes them silly.

I was trying to show how ridiculous religion is when you replace their names with something you weren't raised to believe in. Like if I replaced the numbers with the names of sports teams or models of cars.

My next attempt will be different.

[McCulloch]

Proving the non-existence of God is not that hard; it only needs to be demonstrated that the concept of God is inherently contradictory or that His existence is contradicted by something else we are better aware of.

I disagree. Since the very concept of a god is poorly defined, it is difficult to demonstrate that it is inherently contradictory or that its existence is contradicted by something else we are aware of.

For example, incarnation. The Christian concept of God is that a human, Jesus, is god. This very concept is a contradiction. Humans have various attributes: limited knowledge; limited abilities; mortality; physical body. God, it is said, has other attributes: unlimited knowledge; unlimited abilities; immortality; incorporeality. As anyone can notice, these attributes contradict. One being cannot be both mortal and immortal, have limited as well as unlimited knowledge. Theologians, of course, have an answer. In Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person. This answer, to me, is just a bunch of words that really do not address the problem. How can one person have limited and unlimited knowledge? It is a divine mystery. Right.

Another example: the problem of evil. Simply stated, the existence of an all powerful, all knowing and benevolent being is incompatible with evils such as parasites, viruses, acts of God and the like. But theologians, have spilled oceans of ink discussing theodicy, but have come no closer to answering the issues.

Second, falsifiability. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a proposition being scientifically unfalsifiable; that is, not falsifiable through the application of the scientific method. For instance, we all believe that the scientific method reveals what is the case, do we not? But this fact (that science works) is not, strictly speaking, scientifically falsifiable.

Agreed. Science seems to work. Theology, not so much.

[AquinasD]

I disagree. Since the very concept of a god is poorly defined, it is difficult to demonstrate that it is inherently contradictory or that its existence is contradicted by something else we are aware of.

The concept is not poorly defined, it is only poorly understood. Which makes sense, considering God is a being unlike any other beings (which I think can be a given for our concept of God, no matter what else we think follows).

For example, incarnation. The Christian concept of God is that a human, Jesus, is god. This very concept is a contradiction. Humans have various attributes: limited knowledge; limited abilities; mortality; physical body. God, it is said, has other attributes: unlimited knowledge; unlimited abilities; immortality; incorporeality. As anyone can notice, these attributes contradict. One being cannot be both mortal and immortal, have limited as well as unlimited knowledge. Theologians, of course, have an answer. In Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person. This answer, to me, is just a bunch of words that really do not address the problem. How can one person have limited and unlimited knowledge? It is a divine mystery. Right.

There are theories much more detailed and nuanced than you let on. One can take either a kenotic approach (i.e. the Son gave up access to His attributes) or even say that this demonstrates that being a human is not so essentially limiting as we otherwise would believe.

Another example: the problem of evil. Simply stated, the existence of an all powerful, all knowing and benevolent being is incompatible with evils such as parasites, viruses, acts of God and the like. But theologians, have spilled oceans of ink discussing theodicy, but have come no closer to answering the issues.

To your own satisfaction, granted.

Agreed. Science seems to work. Theology, not so much.

My point is that, in principle, we can gain knowledge without science. In fact, some objects of knowledge are unobtainable through science.

[AquinasD]

Right... I'm not sure what you said there. Ummmm, so would you disagree with my statement if I replaced the numbers with religions or no? I guess that's what I getting at.

No. Your illustration would be clumsy. It would be better to approach the concepts directly, rather than utilizing not very analogous pictures.

As I spoke about, there are methods that can attempt to demonstrate God's existence by showing that the concept is fundamentally contradictory.

For example, consider omniscience and omnipotence. If omniscience would include the knowledge of everything that God is going to do, then it seems to follow that God is not really omnipotent, since He wouldn't be free to do otherwise than He what knows He will do. But omniscience and omnipotence are essential properties of God. Therefore, God is impossible. God cannot possibly exist.

Et voila, a rudimentary argument for God's non-existence.

It seems to me there is something about the unfalsifiableness that makes them silly.

There are not many religious doctrines that could be scientifically falsified. I suppose if a 6,000 year old earth was made a doctrine, that could be easily falsified, but most Christians don't hold that as a doctrine and agree with whatever science tells us about the earth's history.

I was trying to show how ridiculous religion is when you replace their names with something you weren't raised to believe in. Like if I replaced the numbers with the names of sports teams or models of cars.

Believing in the healing power of Dale Earnhardt makes perfect sense if by 'Dale Earnhardt' you meant 'the Palestinian Jew born of the Virgin Mary and died by Crucifixion and was raised again on the 3rd day.' So no, you're not really getting at anything by replacing names, since you're speaking of different concepts if you mean to name something different.

My next attempt will be different.

That will probably help.