Print

[MonroeMonkey]

Would a paradox be considered logical?

In this case there's no proof of there even being a paradox.




An angel of fire just appeared to me. It showed me God is a blue orb that dwells in golden effulgence. Now, I can't prove this, and it's impossible to disprove. So, save any logical arguments about it not being true. Oh, and it tells me to hate pork. I wondered why, but my god wouldn't answer.

[ducksoup]

YOU say it cannot be proved or disproved.

Here's Russell's Teapot.

Quote: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely. - End Quote.



Many think the hypothesis of god CAN be proven or disproved. What a HEDGE FALLACY to make such claims it cannot be disproved. What a product of faulty logic.


Sometimes I debate doctrines based in faith and other times I debate against a faith in even the existence of certain types of god.

His “theory” is only possible in his own mind.  Did the teapot in space just appear out of nowhere?  Did random change make one single teapot in mid space?  Did someone from earth that made the human creation “teapot” send it to space?  Spaceflights  are pretty well watched and debris is highly monitored.  Someone chucking one into space would be noticed.  Also your example is limited to our current earth telescopes and not what will be developed and that is assuming that a radio telescope would not be able to pick up something if not a teapot.  Frankly, that is an incredibly weak attempt at trying to assert that there is no God or god.  It interjects a human made creation and makes a wild presumption that it could magically appear in space between two planets and further not be seen by current telescopes.

In short, your person’s analogy is poor because with enough money, time, or technology it can be proved or disproved definitively.

LOL a hedge fallacy is changing the meaning of the definition of the words or phrase to protect it from being disproved.  You are probably confusing it with an appeal to ignorance that says that if it cannot be disproved then it is true.  However, what is that some things CAN NOT be proved or disproved.   That little extra word changes the meaning completely. 

[ducksoup]

You gotta love the terrible logic that says, "I believe in a god, and you can by no means disprove it! It's beyond that!"

LOL.

Gosh, I didn't think I was paying that much attention to this that you would attempt insults so soon. 

[LessGovernment]

get 'em Duck!

Believe me, he is everything you think he is...plus too much free time 

[MonroeMonkey]

Gosh, I didn't think I was paying that much attention to this that you would attempt insults so soon.

Pointing out faulty logic is an insult?

His “theory” is only possible in his own mind.  Did the teapot in space just appear out of nowhere?  Did random change make one single teapot in mid space?  Did someone from earth that made the human creation “teapot” send it to space?  Spaceflights  are pretty well watched and debris is highly monitored.  Someone chucking one into space would be noticed.  Also your example is limited to our current earth telescopes and not what will be developed and that is assuming that a radio telescope would not be able to pick up something if not a teapot.  Frankly, that is an incredibly weak attempt at trying to assert that there is no God or god.  It interjects a human made creation and makes a wild presumption that it could magically appear in space between two planets and further not be seen by current telescopes.

In short, your person’s analogy is poor because with enough money, time, or technology it can be proved or disproved definitively.

You've missed the point. He explained how people make claims and try to make it impossible to disprove it, which is terrible logic. Remember, he said no telescope can detect it, not even the most powerful telescopes. He's showing the hedging.

You're making the claim these gods cannot be disproved. It's stupid logic. The Muslim can say that about Allah. The Hindu about Shiva.

LOL a hedge fallacy is changing the meaning of the definition of the words or phrase to protect it from being disproved.  You are probably confusing it with an appeal to ignorance that says that if it cannot be disproved then it is true.  However, what is that some things CAN NOT be proved or disproved.   That little extra word changes the meaning completely.

 

You can LOL if you want, but it's clear you have no idea. Look on the list of fallacies I posted from a book called "The Book of Fallacies." Do you see "Hedging"? That's where you make a claim and HEDGE it so you can't be shown to be wrong. This is what you do. You say, "I have a god and you cannot prove or disprove it." Terrible logic.

And you wrongly defined an argument from ignorance. What you defined was a non sequitur.

[MonroeMonkey]

get 'em Duck!

Believe me, he is everything you think he is...plus too much free time 

Typical Ad Hominem.

Troll.

[marilyn.monroe]

In this case there's no proof of there even being a paradox.




An angel of fire just appeared to me. It showed me God is a blue orb that dwells in golden effulgence. Now, I can't prove this, and it's impossible to disprove. So, save any logical arguments about it not being true. Oh, and it tells me to hate pork. I wondered why, but my god wouldn't answer.

Math and physics could be applied to measure some of these things. Maybe you already know the answer you seek.

[Forsythia]

Here you go Xerxes.

[MonroeMonkey]

Lol. That sums it up!

[ducksoup]

Pointing out faulty logic is an insult?

You've missed the point. He explained how people make claims and try to make it impossible to disprove it, which is terrible logic. Remember, he said no telescope can detect it, not even the most powerful telescopes. He's showing the hedging.

You're making the claim these gods cannot be disproved. It's stupid logic. The Muslim can say that about Allah. The Hindu about Shiva.


 

You can LOL if you want, but it's clear you have no idea. Look on the list of fallacies I posted from a book called "The Book of Fallacies." Do you see "Hedging"? That's where you make a claim and HEDGE it so you can't be shown to be wrong. This is what you do. You say, "I have a god and you cannot prove or disprove it." Terrible logic.

And you wrongly defined an argument from ignorance. What you defined was a non sequitur.

Ahhh, so, you put your man’s THEORY and now it is MY FAULT that it is faulty?  You purported it as saying something is not provable as being faulty logic.  As I said, it CAN be proved or disproved with time, money, and technology.  That leads one to the obvious conclusion that it is a very weak candidate for a faith analogy.  I am not sure why I am supposed to remember, as you tell me, that he had no telescope.  That just tried to hedge the original with new parameters.  I am guessing, since that is all you leave me that you claim this to be a few hundred years ago when technology had not developed telescopes.  So, what?  I believe that something will be proved to be faster than light.  I have faith that when technology advances enough, it will be discovered and measured.  I don’t make the claim that it is never provable, only that it is not provable NOW.

You seem to have some wild idea that logic has no room for thing that cannot be proved or disproved.  In high math, the thing that cannot be proved, or disproved is called “undecidable.” 

In mathematical logic, independence refers to the unprovability of a sentence from other sentences.
A sentence σ is independent of a given first-order theory T if T neither proves nor refutes σ; that is, it is impossible to prove σ from T, and it is also impossible to prove from T that σ is false. Sometimes, σ is said (synonymously) to be undecidable from T; this is not the same meaning of "decidability" as in a decision problem.
A theory T is independent if each axiom in T is not provable from the remaining axioms in T. A theory for which there is an independent set of axioms is independently axiomatizable.
Usage note
Some authors say that σ is independent of T if T simply cannot prove σ, and do not necessarily assert by this that T cannot refute σ. These authors will sometimes say "σ is independent of and consistent with T" to indicate that T can neither prove nor refute σ.
Independence results in set theory
Many interesting statements in set theory are independent of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF). The following statements in set theory are known to be independent of ZF, granting that ZF is consistent:
•   The axiom of choice
•   The continuum hypothesis and the generalised continuum hypothesis
•   The Suslin conjecture
The following statements (none of which have been proved false) cannot be proved in ZFC to be independent of ZFC, even if the added hypothesis is granted that ZFC is consistent. However, they cannot be proved in ZFC (granting that ZFC is consistent), and few working set theorists expect to find a refutation of them in ZFC.
•   The existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals
•   The existence of large cardinals
•   The non-existence of Kurepa trees
The following statements are inconsistent with the axiom of choice, and therefore with ZFC. However they are probably independent of ZF, in a corresponding sense to the above: They cannot be proved in ZF, and few working set theorists expect to find a refutation in ZF. However ZF cannot prove that they are independent of ZF, even with the added hypothesis that ZF is consistent.
•   The Axiom of determinacy
•   The axiom of real determinacy
•   AD+
See also
•   List of statements undecidable in ZFC
•   Parallel postulate for an example in geometry
•   Truth
Truth in mathematics
Main articles: Model theory and Proof theory
There are two main approaches to truth in mathematics. They are the model theory of truth and the proof theory of truth[citation needed].
Historically, with the nineteenth century development of Boolean algebra mathematical models of logic began to treat "truth", also represented as "T" or "1", as an arbitrary constant. "Falsity" is also an arbitrary constant, which can be represented as "F" or "0". In propositional logic, these symbols can be manipulated according to a set of axioms and rules of inference, often given in the form of truth tables.
In addition, from at least the time of Hilbert's program at the turn of the twentieth century to the proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the development of the Church-Turing thesis in the early part of that century, true statements in mathematics were generally assumed to be those statements which are provable in a formal axiomatic system.[citation needed]
The works of Kurt Gödel, Alan Turing, and others shook this assumption, with the development of statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system.[43] Two examples of the latter can be found in Hilbert's problems. Work on Hilbert's 10th problem led in the late twentieth century to the construction of specific Diophantine equations for which it is undecidable whether they have a solution,[44] or even if they do, whether they have a finite or infinite number of solutions. More fundamentally, Hilbert's first problem was on the continuum hypothesis.[45] Gödel and Paul Cohen showed that this hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved using the standard axioms of set theory.[46] In the view of some, then, it is equally reasonable to take either the continuum hypothesis or its negation as a new axiom.

Axiomatic set theory
In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved the first ZFC undecidability result, namely that the consistency of ZFC itself was undecidable in ZFC.
The axiom of constructibility (V=L, all sets in the universe are constructible) implies the generalized continuum hypothesis (which states that ℵn = ℶn for every ordinal n) and the combinatorial statement ◊, which both imply the continuum hypothesis (which states that ℵ1 = ℶ1). All these statements are independent of ZFC, as shown by Paul Cohen and Kurt Gödel.
Martin's axiom together with the negation of the continuum hypothesis is undecidable in ZFC.[1]
Assuming that ZFC is consistent, the existence of large cardinal numbers, such as inaccessible cardinals, Mahlo cardinals etc., cannot be proved in ZFC. On the other hand, few working set theorists expect their existence to be disproved.
[edit] Set theory of the real line
There are many cardinal invariants of the real line, connected with measure theory and statements related to the Baire category theorem whose exact values are independent of ZFC (in a stronger sense than that the continuum hypothesis is in ZFC. While nontrivial relations can be proved between them, most cardinal invariants can be any regular cardinal between  and  ). This is a major area of study in set theoretic real analysis. Martin's axiom has a tendency to set most interesting cardinal invariants equal to  .
[edit] Order theory
The answer to Suslin's problem is independent of ZFC.[2] The diamond principle ◊ proves the existence of a Suslin line, while Martin's axiom + the negation of the continuum hypothesis proves that no Suslin line exists.
Existence of Kurepa trees is independent of ZFC.
[edit] Group theory
In 1973, Saharon Shelah showed that the Whitehead problem ("is every abelian group A with Ext1(A, Z) = 0 a free abelian group?") is independent of ZFC.[3] A group with Ext1(A, Z) = 0 which is not free abelian is called a Whitehead group; Martin's Axiom + the negation of the continuum hypothesis proves the existence of a Whitehead group, while the axiom of constructibility proves that no Whitehead group exists.
[edit] Measure theory
A stronger version of Fubini's theorem for positive functions, where the function is no longer assumed to be measurable but merely that the two iterated integrals are well defined and exist, is independent of ZFC. On the one hand, the continuum hypothesis implies that there exists a function on the unit square whose iterated integrals are not equal — the function is simply the indicator function of an ordering of [0, 1] equivalent to a well ordering of the cardinal  . A similar example can be constructed using Martin's axiom. On the other hand, the consistency of the strong Fubini theorem was first shown by Friedman.[4] It can also be deduced from a variant of Freiling's axiom of symmetry.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(mathematical_logic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_undecidable_in_ZFC

Now, the logic of the mathematicians that use that extreme high form of logic are far beyond my capabilities, but they have shown with their math that some things cannot be mathematically proved or disproved.  I guess you attempt to insult them as well that THEY have terrible logic?

You can LOL if you want, but it's clear you have no idea.

 

Really, so I can only compare my logical abilities and facts if they suit you and you are the measure?  How is it that you can make the vastly wild claim that I “have no idea”?  You used a completely contrary statement to my own to make a false claim.  The difference between can and cannot.  I am unsure if you did it from ignorance or malice, but it was there.  That was my LOL.  Not as you transferred to “hedging” which IS the changing or morphing so one cannot disprove an idea.  The use of “maybe” becomes a hedge.  The statement “Father’s do not spank their children.” Gets shown that it does happen, then hedges to “’good fathers do not spank their children.” THAT is a hedge.

Most things can be proved or disproved.  Some will need time or technology to do it, but there is an eventual confidence (faith) that it can be proved.  Yet, there is still a subset that cannot and will not be able to be proved or disproved.  That you wish to mock me and belittle my intelligence just because you cannot reach a level of logic that can accept that fact, does not mean that it magically disappears to suit your personal opinion.

Does showing that some things are never provable or disprovable say that there is a God?  No, but it does show that the statement that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved is a logical statement and not a fallacy as you assert.  Your personal opinion merely cannot accept it as valid, but that does not make the logic false.  What it does do is make my own opinion exactly equivalent to your own non provable opinion that there is no god because it cannot be proved. 

I have faith that math is a very exacting science.
I have faith that atoms exist even though I have never seen one.
I have faith that gravity will hold me to the planet even if I don’t know how it formed or why it works.
I have faith that most people are more inherently good than inherently evil.
I have faith that the universes are finite even though it is likely to be not provable.
I have faith that evolution is an earth process and has only been proved to a limited amount.
I have faith that there is a God.

I have no problem that you have the personal opinion that there is no god because it cannot be proved, but you wish to belittle me and mock my intelligence because I equally believe the opposite.  I cannot prove that there is a god, but neither can you prove that there is not.  I have faith that there is a God.  You have faith that there is not.  They are equal.  While you base your opinion on other indicators that you use to show possible truth or possible false, it does not change the logic that it is an undecidable.  Further, simply stating a wild personal opinion that my logic skills or intelligence is severely lacking because it doesn’t fit with your personal opinion does not advance discussion but is a clear attempt to shut down discussion.  Which logical fallacy is that one?

[Frenchfry]

And the reason DS is spending such an inordinate amount of time in attack mode on this subject.....he needs to prove to his "friend" JBS that he's not the hard-core leftie that JBS has him pegged as.

Some people enjoy preying upon the human frailties exhibited by some.

The goal? Well it's divide and conquer of course...and it works.

But it's near impossible to tell someone they've been duped...pointing it out usually results in denial...and perhaps even worse....the possibility of the impetus to add to the "I'm a moderate scorecard"

[MonroeMonkey]

Ahhh, so, you put your man’s THEORY and now it is MY FAULT that it is faulty?  You purported it as saying something is not provable as being faulty logic.  As I said, it CAN be proved or disproved with time, money, and technology.  That leads one to the obvious conclusion that it is a very weak candidate for a faith analogy.  I am not sure why I am supposed to remember, as you tell me, that he had no telescope.  That just tried to hedge the original with new parameters.  I am guessing, since that is all you leave me that you claim this to be a few hundred years ago when technology had not developed telescopes.  So, what?  I believe that something will be proved to be faster than light.  I have faith that when technology advances enough, it will be discovered and measured.  I don’t make the claim that it is never provable, only that it is not provable NOW.

You're still not getting it. Russel purposely says it CANNOT be detected with the most powerful telescopes. He is making it impossible, on his own grounds, to prove or disprove this teapot. THIS is what you're doing with your god. BUT you've back pedaled now and said it cannot be proved or disproved at this time. That's the fallacy of Moving the Goalposts. *Check*

You seem to have some wild idea that logic has no room for thing that cannot be proved or disproved.  In high math, the thing that cannot be proved, or disproved is called “undecidable.” 

Now, the logic of the mathematicians that use that extreme high form of logic are far beyond my capabilities, but they have shown with their math that some things cannot be mathematically proved or disproved.  I guess you attempt to insult them as well that THEY have terrible logic?

Strawman Argument. *Check* This is about some invisible deity not mathematics.
 

Really, so I can only compare my logical abilities and facts if they suit you and you are the measure?  How is it that you can make the vastly wild claim that I “have no idea”?  You used a completely contrary statement to my own to make a false claim.  The difference between can and cannot.  I am unsure if you did it from ignorance or malice, but it was there.  That was my LOL.  Not as you transferred to “hedging” which IS the changing or morphing so one cannot disprove an idea.  The use of “maybe” becomes a hedge.  The statement “Father’s do not spank their children.” Gets shown that it does happen, then hedges to “’good fathers do not spank their children.” THAT is a hedge.

To claim this is a god, that you believe in, that cannot be disproved by counterarguments IS a hedge. You're trying to weasel out of it. Not working.

Most things can be proved or disproved.  Some will need time or technology to do it, but there is an eventual confidence (faith) that it can be proved.  Yet, there is still a subset that cannot and will not be able to be proved or disproved.  That you wish to mock me and belittle my intelligence just because you cannot reach a level of logic that can accept that fact, does not mean that it magically disappears to suit your personal opinion.

Does showing that some things are never provable or disprovable say that there is a God?  No, but it does show that the statement that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved is a logical statement and not a fallacy as you assert.  Your personal opinion merely cannot accept it as valid, but that does not make the logic false.  What it does do is make my own opinion exactly equivalent to your own non provable opinion that there is no god because it cannot be proved. 

I have no problem that you have the personal opinion that there is no god because it cannot be proved, but you wish to belittle me and mock my intelligence because I equally believe the opposite.  I cannot prove that there is a god, but neither can you prove that there is not.  I have faith that there is a God.  You have faith that there is not.  They are equal.  While you base your opinion on other indicators that you use to show possible truth or possible false, it does not change the logic that it is an undecidable.  Further, simply stating a wild personal opinion that my logic skills or intelligence is severely lacking because it doesn’t fit with your personal opinion does not advance discussion but is a clear attempt to shut down discussion.  Which logical fallacy is that one?

How am I mocking your intelligence? I'm merely pointing out your faulty logic and your poor attempt to back pedal, move the goalposts, hedge, and arbitrate to your own fancy.

You're attempting to make a priori arguments, and saying they can't be disproved. Where I'm saying that's nonsense and shouldn't even be taken seriously. Provide an argument a posteriori, and you'll have something.

And my negative stance against invisible positive claims is NOT equal to your positive claims of a god that cannot be proved or disproved, according to your arbitrary leanings, which are NOT backed by any substantial argument.

[ducksoup]

And the reason DS is spending such an inordinate amount of time in attack mode on this subject.....he needs to prove to his "friend" JBS that he's not the hard-core leftie that JBS has him pegged as.

Some people enjoy preying upon the human frailties exhibited by some.

The goal? Well it's divide and conquer of course...and it works.

But it's near impossible to tell someone they've been duped...pointing it out usually results in denial...and perhaps even worse....the possibility of the impetus to add to the "I'm a moderate scorecard"

LO Again with the trained attack duck.  amusing.

I am posting in this topic simply because I enjoy logic games and debates.  No other reason.

I have said before, I used to be what i would consider firmly moderate.  Then for whatever reason people moved right and I stayed where I was and now am considered left by default.  I can see reason on both sides and pick and choose which I believe. 

I have always considered JBS a friend, even when our discussions became heated.  That never changed.  I have room to understand that some people deeply believe differently than I do.  I suggest that maybe one reason I like J is because we don't agree but often can discuss and use it to think things through and after agree that it okay to disagree.

Kopke is interesting because he really deeply believes what he says and usually isn't just the email repeats or right wing talking head echo.  However, at the same time he uses his delivery to be purposefully antagonistic, just as you do.  While I can often agree with your posting material, I also disagree with the antagonistic approach you take, just like with John.

Accusing someone will just make them shut down and never listen no matter how good the evidence is. 

I am what I am.  I can say that one of my biggies is education and always has been.  I believe it is the one thing that made us what we are.  Without it there would never have been the great country we became and might once again be.  I believe that the social benefits of good education far outweigh the cost, whatever they are.  Is there room for improvement, absolutely there always is.  But, profiteering education isn't one.

Do I evolve in my thinking?  Yes.  I was all in favor of Bush bailing out the big banks because I believed the severe crash it would cause would be extreme and bad, and it would.  However, letting the big banks get a free pass and not fixing it so it can't happen again has allowed them to keep doing exactly the same bad practices they did to cause it the first time.  In other words, bailing them out and not making them pay for their reckless gambling and not fixing it so they can't is certainly ensuring that it WILL happen again.

But, again back to me trying to play nice so I am seen as in the middle is false.  I am talking as I am.  Of course I have an ego that wants things fixed the way I feel that they should, but that doesn't mean that fixing them in a way I can live with is bad and is preferable to not doing a dang thing because the people pulling the politicians strings want us to bicker and feud and not notice the man behind the curtain.

[ducksoup]

You're still not getting it. Russel purposely says it CANNOT be detected with the most powerful telescopes. He is making it impossible, on his own grounds, to prove or disprove this teapot. THIS is what you're doing with your god. BUT you've back pedaled now and said it cannot be proved or disproved at this time. That's the fallacy of Moving the Goalposts. *Check*

Why must I accept only the new parameter that it has to be no telescope or his limited telescope when I can see that there are other avenues to prove or disprove the hypothesis?  It CAN be proved or disproved. Yes, it is moving the goalpost, and that is what you keep doing.  No telescope, limited telescope... It still can be proved or disproved.

Strawman Argument. *Check* This is about some invisible deity not mathematics.

That is not straw man, you use it incorrectly.  You use a doctrine to point to evidence that you claim proves falsehood, yet when I use YOUR doctrine of science in the same manner it is claimed by you as not appropriate.  Again your claim is to make the playing field not level so that your claims have weight and I have no recourse or equality.
 

To claim this is a god, that you believe in, that cannot be disproved by counterarguments IS a hedge. You're trying to weasel out of it. Not working.

You again misunderstand what the argument is and again say it is a hedge when I am NOT changing parameters.  I say it is an undecidable, not able to prove or disprove.  That is not hedging it is undecidable.  Because you personally cannot believe that it is even possible gives you the only option left to you and claiming it is false and therefore any claim of undecidable is false.  That only means you cannot manage the logic of knowing that there is a factual "undecidable" just as is factual in mathematics.  There are undecidable, they exist.  picking and choosing upon your personal opinion does not make undecidables disappear.

A hedge would be MAYBE there is a God but you can't prove it.  That becomes a hedge - the maybe.  What I said is a clear undecidable that  factually one cannot prove the existence of God, which is equal to one cannot disprove the existence of God.  For you to make jump to saying I am false because it is contra to what you believe does not make it false, it simply means you BELIEVE it is false.
 
I am unsure why you again regress to insults rather than trying to use logic.  I have not changed my stance, and have not shifted parameters as you have. 

How am I mocking your intelligence? I'm merely pointing out your faulty logic and your poor attempt to back pedal, move the goalposts, hedge, and arbitrate to your own fancy.

My argument has been consistent in saying that it is an undecidable. I have not changed parameters as you have.  I do not say you are false because it is contra to my belief.  You make CLAIMS that I use false logic and show none.  You claim I backpedal when  I have not.  Which goalpost did I move?  I said it absolutely consistently that it cannot be proved or disproved.  YOU claim that is a hedge when it is not.  I do not have a clue what you refer to as me arbitrating as i like... would that be how you changed meanings to suit your argumentation without letting me know that you did?  Would that be you making up a meaning to suit you?  Would that be you saying I have to argue what is in your mind and not what is logical?  Is that what you mean by "arbitration" because I am unsure exactly what you are accusing.

You're attempting to make a priori arguments, and saying they can't be disproved.

How in the world did you come up with a priori and think it applied?  I don't remember who but a priori is basically something like you can lay on your couch and know that it is true, you don't NEED science to prove it.  All children are not adults is a priori. 

Where I'm saying that's nonsense and shouldn't even be taken seriously. Provide an argument a posteriori, and you'll have something.

 

Really, just because YOU say so then it is.  Do you also say that gravity does not exist so you can float away?  Why are YOU the sole arbiter of what is valid?  Because I have shown that udecideds exist outside faith does not make it a truth, but it does show that undecideds exist.  You contend that it cannot be an undecided because you believe that it can't.  I see no way that an undecided can be proved a posteriori because you cannot use science to prove that God doesn't exist either. 

And my negative stance against invisible positive claims is NOT equal to your positive claims of a god that cannot be proved or disproved, according to your arbitrary leanings, which are NOT backed by any substantial argument.

Why are they not equal, just because you say so?  I showed that logically and logic have allowed and shown that there are undecideds outside of this one.  They exist for mathematicians way beyond my comprehension.  You chose to say that they don't matter, as if those facts get in the way of your OPINION. 

But I am glad you finally got there.... You based YOUR opinions on externalites trying to invoke correlation.  You claim that falsifying claims from the bible proves that there is no God, when all you possibly prove is a doctrine might be false (I say maybe because I didn't pay attention to your rantings on those).  What you claim is that my arbitrary leanings are wrong simply because you believe that they are.  You have no substantial argument to prove that my claim is false and resort to many changes in meaning and definition and incorrect accusations of false logic use to somehow support the claim.  That is because it is an undecided and cannot be decided as true or false and must be just personal opinion and that alone.  The only claim you can have is that I am false simply because you say so, and not from logical debate.

Let me guess the next step you try to make me prove you wrong and change the goalpost again?


nothing changed

[MonroeMonkey]

Why must I accept only the new parameter that it has to be no telescope or his limited telescope when I can see that there are other avenues to prove or disprove the hypothesis?  It CAN be proved or disproved. Yes, it is moving the goalpost, and that is what you keep doing.  No telescope, limited telescope... It still can be proved or disproved.

This is the first time I've looked at your post here, so I'll address it.

Exactly! That IS what Russel was doing to make the point. He was moving the goalposts, saying this is what people do with ideas of god. He attempts to make it beyond disproof by moving the goalposts and hedging.

That is not straw man, you use it incorrectly.  You use a doctrine to point to evidence that you claim proves falsehood, yet when I use YOUR doctrine of science in the same manner it is claimed by you as not appropriate.  Again your claim is to make the playing field not level so that your claims have weight and I have no recourse or equality.

To compare such mathematics to this very different god idea is a strawman, plain and simple. I'll explain more below.
 

You again misunderstand what the argument is and again say it is a hedge when I am NOT changing parameters.  I say it is an undecidable, not able to prove or disprove.  That is not hedging it is undecidable.  Because you personally cannot believe that it is even possible gives you the only option left to you and claiming it is false and therefore any claim of undecidable is false.  That only means you cannot manage the logic of knowing that there is a factual "undecidable" just as is factual in mathematics.  There are undecidable, they exist.  picking and choosing upon your personal opinion does not make undecidables disappear.

Again, the appeal to those mathematics is a strawman.

YOU are saying this god, whoever this god is, cannot be proven or disproved. That means this god is hedged beyond proof and disproof.

A hedge would be MAYBE there is a God but you can't prove it.  That becomes a hedge - the maybe.  What I said is a clear undecidable that  factually one cannot prove the existence of God, which is equal to one cannot disprove the existence of God.  For you to make jump to saying I am false because it is contra to what you believe does not make it false, it simply means you BELIEVE it is false.

To even put forth there is a god without evidence is in itself absurd. Perhaps, an anthropomorphic fallacy that realistically isn't even a question of being proved or disproved, because it doesn't exist.

 

I am unsure why you again regress to insults rather than trying to use logic.  I have not changed my stance, and have not shifted parameters as you have. 

I base my insults on evidence of poor reasoning, and I always offer an argument.

My argument has been consistent in saying that it is an undecidable. I have not changed parameters as you have.  I do not say you are false because it is contra to my belief.  You make CLAIMS that I use false logic and show none.  You claim I backpedal when  I have not.  Which goalpost did I move?  I said it absolutely consistently that it cannot be proved or disproved.  YOU claim that is a hedge when it is not.  I do not have a clue what you refer to as me arbitrating as i like... would that be how you changed meanings to suit your argumentation without letting me know that you did?  Would that be you making up a meaning to suit you?  Would that be you saying I have to argue what is in your mind and not what is logical?  Is that what you mean by "arbitration" because I am unsure exactly what you are accusing.

You said God cannot be proved or disproved. Then you changed it to, "I don’t make the claim that it is never provable, only that it is not provable NOW." That is moving the goalposts. Adjusting the argument as you see fit.

How in the world did you come up with a priori and think it applied?  I don't remember who but a priori is basically something like you can lay on your couch and know that it is true, you don't NEED science to prove it.  All children are not adults is a priori. 

In logic some make a claim as if god is a priori fact (apart from empirical evidence) and they build on that and then make the claim this god they are building on cannot be proved or disproved.

To quote another: Apriorist fallacies consist of trying to base knowledge of fundamental truths on anything other than empirical evidence.

 

Really, just because YOU say so then it is.  Do you also say that gravity does not exist so you can float away?  Why are YOU the sole arbiter of what is valid?  Because I have shown that udecideds exist outside faith does not make it a truth, but it does show that undecideds exist.  You contend that it cannot be an undecided because you believe that it can't.  I see no way that an undecided can be proved a posteriori because you cannot use science to prove that God doesn't exist either. 

You are the one making the rules here. The burden of proof is on you to even prove this so-called god cannot be proven or disproved. If you can't why would anyone even entertain this idea?

Why are they not equal, just because you say so?  I showed that logically and logic have allowed and shown that there are undecideds outside of this one.  They exist for mathematicians way beyond my comprehension.  You chose to say that they don't matter, as if those facts get in the way of your OPINION. 

Again, it's a strawman. Mathematics can be demonstrated. You have nothing to even establish such an idea of god ought to be taken seriously; although, you may appeal to an anthropomorphic fallacy.

But I am glad you finally got there.... You based YOUR opinions on externalites trying to invoke correlation.  You claim that falsifying claims from the bible proves that there is no God, when all you possibly prove is a doctrine might be false (I say maybe because I didn't pay attention to your rantings on those).  What you claim is that my arbitrary leanings are wrong simply because you believe that they are.  You have no substantial argument to prove that my claim is false and resort to many changes in meaning and definition and incorrect accusations of false logic use to somehow support the claim.  That is because it is an undecided and cannot be decided as true or false and must be just personal opinion and that alone.  The only claim you can have is that I am false simply because you say so, and not from logical debate.

I never said this god absolutely did not exist, but I often make naturalistic arguments and employ Occam's Razor to prevent a god of the gaps fallacy, which is an argument from ignorance.

And again, your appeal to a god may not even be real, as far as I can tell, so until you can reasonably explain to me why I should take this disprovable god seriously, you have nothing.

Let me guess the next step you try to make me prove you wrong and change the goalpost again?

Not if you don't move them.