A "God" without definite, sine qua non, predicates renders this statement Not Even Wrong. Nonetheless, I disagree with what I think you're saying, which is that negative proofs are not possible ...We can't actually prove God doesn't exist (a negative) for we can't tell if it's because of my ignorance (of the proof). — Agent Smith
So which predicated g/G are we even talking about?[ ... ] predicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when). — 180 Proof
A "God" without definite, sine qua non, predicates renders this statement Not Even Wrong. — 180 Proof
Nonetheless, I disagree with what I think you're saying, which is that negative proofs are not possible ... — 180 Proof
A "God" without definite, sine qua non, predicates renders this statement Not Even Wrong. Nonetheless, I disagree with what I think you're saying, which is that negative proofs are not possible ...
[ ... ] predicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).
— 180 Proof
So which predicated g/G are we even talking about? — 180 Proof
Apparently, you didn't follow the link (handle to the quote) where I flesh-out my argument for negative proofs. — 180 Proof
In short, no predicates (or lacking appropriate predicates) means ignorance, and proof from ignorance is no proof at all. — tim wood
It's a rule in Aristotelian logic - of syllogisms - that a negative premise requires a negative conclusion (to be valid), and from two negative premises no valid conclusion follows. And this can be seen by drawing Venn diagrams. — tim wood
Where life gets a little bit tricky is when the negative can be converted into a positive. X is not a poison into X is a not-poison. In part the ability to work this depends on whether the not-X constitutes a well-(enough)-defined class. And often enough, not-X cannot be so defined. — tim wood
:up:I see your point how predicates should inform us about search parameters and if the search turns up empty, we can (via modus tollens à la falsifiability claim nonexistence of entity assigned the predicates). I hope I got that right. — Agent Smith
Your argument boils down to, absence of evidence is evidence of absence — TheMadFool
It actually is a pretty good argument. I'm not sure where the saying "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" came from, but its simply incorrect: not only is absence of evidence evidence of absence, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a provable theorem of probability theory. And how strong of evidence it is, depends on the likelihood or the expectation of the presence of a particular sort of evidence, if the proposition in question were true.Your argument boils down to, absence of evidence is evidence of absence which, fortunately or not, is not as good as you seem to think it is.
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. — Wikipedia
I am afraid that in practice we feel that the burden of proof rests with the statement that is farthest from common sense. — Jedothek
this criterion is sloppy, sheeplike, and depressing — Jedothek
We must be content if we can attain to so much precision in our statement as the subject before us admits of; for the same degree of accuracy is no more to be expected in all kinds of reasoning than in all kinds of handicraft. — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I.iii
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.