"You can't prove a universal negative."

Themnax

The intangible?

As far as we will ever know, it has always resembled precisely what we can make of it.

Agnosticism has no 'real' defence against atheism. lol

 

You don't seem to be getting the point I'm trying to make. Say your car was stolen last night. You have no idea who stole it but you do know that it was not a fictitious cartoon character named Shrek!

There are things that logic and common sense can rule out completely or at the very least put at a very low probability. So yes, I can justify my saying that I don’t know what created energy but I do know what did not! I do not and I will never hold lies, fairytales, and fantasy with the same logical weight as a proven theory such as evolution.

 

the only thing you showed is that logical contradictions are not valid

 

First, I want to deal with you, Dejavu. And I want you to pay close attention to something mati said:

Now, mati is quite right that the object I could only prove that the object in question does not exist because it's concept is logically contradictory, that is, x has both P and not-P. So, of course the object does not exist. Furthermore, it can be proved that it does not exist, precisely because the object is logically contradictory. But the proof is nevertheless valid.

I think your problem is that you see a proof as proving the existence of an object, when, really, a logical proof does nothing of the sort. A proof tells you whether a certain sentence is true or false. I have proved that a sentence about a universal negative is true. So, I have proved that you can prove a universal negative. It's just that simple, and unless you can find an invalid step in the proof itself, the matter is closed. Of course, "nothing is no object," but that has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the sentence in question.

Now, for relaxxx:

I understand that point, and you would certainly be justified in denying that Shrek stole your car. But this scenario is very far removed from the one we were just discussing. Specifically, if Shrek exists, then he exists in space and time. Shrek would then necessarily enter into the causal sequence, in space and time, at some point in his existence. That means that there would have to be empirical facts about Shrek: his character, his deeds, etc. Since none of these are readily forthcoming, you would be justified in asserting that Shrek did not steal your car.

But God, if he exists, does not exist in space and time and does not necessary enter into the causal sequence. There is no and can be no empirical facts about God and so no probabilistic inference can be made about God, since a probability rests on certain empirical facts. There would be no way to measure the probability. So, when you say that God "probably" does not exist, I have to ask where you inferred this probability, what are its variables, and what are the upper and lower bounds of those variables? As far as I can see, probability can shed no light on this subject, anymore than a hammer can help you fasten screws.

 

In the case of nothing, only a disproof is valid.

I think your problem is that you won't concede the difference between a proof and a disproof as they logically correspond to showing something existing or non-existing.

lol

You haven't proved that you can prove nothing(universal negative).

As I pointed out earlier, the only fault with your so-called "proof" is that the only possible universal negative is nothing. So it is not a proof at all, but rather a disproof of what you think you've proven.

Those who have ears to hear, hear this: :bigear:

You can't prove nothing!

 

A possible example of Evolution and Complexity VS Creationism, explained in Variable form:

Evolution: Complexity is a product of Time and energy…

Variable X exists and spreads across everything because it is the only thing

Maybe Trillions of years later the opposite ends of X intercept and being polar opposites they interact so that a new object exists called Y. Billions of years of spreading out and colliding and interacting in very specific and predictable ways they form new objects, XY, XYZ, XYZC… New objects or ‘elements’ are formed and collide and interact with each other in an exponentially increasing snowball effect of growing complexity and seemingly random or ‘really hard to predict ways’. After billions more years you have variables looking like

ZXCKSDKDFJDSKJKXJNXDSLKLJZKHSDFHSJKHRFEHJSKDJKS

Billions of them

And one on those variables ends up being life

Billions of years later we get consciousness, all the time increasing in complexity.

Then one day this consciousness, full of flaws and weaknesses, being all self righteous and arrogant cannot except the fact the he is not yet intelligent enough to understand how X came to be so he decides it must have been created from Variable ...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPQQQ
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXYZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞....

(God)

...And that, to most humans makes more sense than X!!!!

 

Can you prove that?

It seems to me that a universal negative would be a statement that is universally true in its negation.

For example: x has property p and ~p.

Now, the above is impossible, meaning there is no set of circumstances that exist in any way that could at any time allow for the above statement to be true.

Therefore the negation "It is NOT the case that x has property p and ~p" must be true at all times in all ways and in all circumstances. Therefore, it IS a universal negative. It is not "nothing" in the sense that we weren't ever discussing "something".

Remeber, logic isn't about what is, it is about the statements made regarding what is and whether said statements correspond with what is.

 

0 = 0

That should read "It seems to me that a universal negative is universally true in its negation" as a universal negative can never be a statement.

In negating it, disproving it, certainly. But then that is not proving it is it?
One doesn't prove something (or in this case 'nothing') by disproving it.

Actually it is "nothing" in the sense that we weren't ever discussing "something".

The negation "It is NOT the case that x has property p and ~p" is not a universal negative, it is only a negation.

Logic can only be about what is, as what is precludes all statements made about it.

 

You already know that I'm not a creationist. So, what is this supposed to accomplish?

 

lets' make it simple. can you prove a statement such as-"x does not exist"? The only proof would be "x exists". What is the proof of existence? What is the proof of the proof?

 

Dejavu

LOL

Prove you exist.
If you cant, you cant prove anything does not.


Occam

 

Dejavu = Dejavu

If you read this thread carefully, you will see I am not trying to. God exists, stupidy enough. In atheists like myself however, it does not. lol.

 

Dejavu

You and others of humanity are of no import

Direction exists.
YOU are the result.

Occam

 

I'm flattered, but you are telling me nothing new. 'God' is not direction, because I
have rid it of such meaning. My importance, and lack of, is irrelevant.

 

Your reality IS. [you exist, and because of direction]
But your importance is, as you say, irrelevant.

Occam

 

No argument there. What about 'god' though? What will you do for its meaninglessness?

And most importantly, what are your thoughts on the concept of the superhuman?

 

Dejavu

Nothing.
If 'a' god exists.
It exists.
What occam believes is irrelevant.

Occam

PS. 'Superhuman' is the 'least' important thing occam can imagine.
Besides jello poptarts

 

So far, Dejavu has said a lot of things that make no sense, in order to defend his ludicrous thesis that:

Of course, he’s given no actual arguments. I presented a deduction, proving the non-existence of an object, a logically contradictory object. If the very concept of an object is logically contradictory, then the object necessarily cannot exist. This was my argument, and it is of course true. Dejavu did not understand the argument and responded with innane, unjustified, and question-begging assertions, such as:

and

and

and, my personal favourite

as if italicizing words explain what they mean.

The one scrap of argument Dejavu has actually written is this:

But this, of course, is not the case. Logic shows that certain sentences are true or false or indeterminately true or false, and a sentence can still be true, even necessarily true, if its subject does not exist. Pick up any elementary logic textbook, and this is lesson number one.

What I want Dejavu to do is to consider the following universal negatives, all of which are obviously necessary truths, and tell me why, exactly, none of them are true:

"No object both has and lacks the very same property at the same time."

“0 is a natural number.”

“There is no even prime number other than two.”

“No two distinct objects can occupy the same place at the same time.”

“No object is both all white and all black at the same time.”

 

All dogmatists, on both extremes, suffer from the same mental illness. It is not a mental illness as one typically conceives of it. These people can function perfectly well in society, can graduate from college, get good jobs, get married, and have kids. It is, rather, a mental illness in that these people will make very bad inferences in defense of their dogmas. Young-earth creationists can look at the phenomena and infer, far off in the distance, the existence of God. Atheists too think that they can traverse the infinite divide and conclude, from the very same phenomena, that there is no God.

In truth, science and logic cannot settle the matter either way. They tell us many, many things, but very little about God, even less about whether or not he's there. To avoid both dogmas of fundamentalism and atheism, these mental illnesses, one must steer a middle course, which is usually agnosticism or a moderate form of theism.

Tolerance, pluralism, freedom, acknowledgment of the limitations of human reason, respect for the sciences, respect for custom and tradition, humanism, using your brain, keeping an open mind, thinking critically - These are all virtues that I have found in both agnostics and liberal theists. In fundamentalists and atheists on the other hand, I have found the same, tired, invalid arguments, dogmatism, politicking, and closed-mindedness.

In the case of fundamentalists, most seem to have been raised that way and are either too stupid or too disinterested to explore other points of view. As for the rest of them, they often seem to be "born again" out of drug addiction or some other personal strife. Now, contrary to the atheists, there is nothing wrong with looking to God for help in ordinary life. But there is something wrong with clinging to every scrap of scripture you come across as the be-all-and-end-all of truth. That's just taking the easy way out, and is no real or substantial faith.

Atheists are another matter. A lot of the time, they will be raised in fundamentalist homes, but it just won't take. Now, every action has an equal but opposite reaction, and things are no different here. The reaction is opposite to fundamentalism, but equally stupid! Unfortunately, I think that that's just the kind of black vs. white, us vs. them society we live in today, where every answer is an easy answer. If your not with them, you must be with us. Welcome to flock, brother! Whichever flock that might happen to be.

 

Someone’s a little high on their righteous agnostic fumes!!

Let’s just keep forgetting that popular religious beliefs are fundamentally flawed and logically and scientifically all but completely disproven. Not to mention their primitive ideologies inhibit the advancement of the human race.

It doesn’t add up or make any sense and millions of people are dying over religious bull shit, but as long as we KEEP AN OPEND MIND and not step off the center of the freakin’ lop sided teeter totter of logic, someone might get vertigo and puke up something more logical….

But for now lets just keep an open mind, that is agonistics smart, everyone else retarded!

LOL!