A case for religion, and against AA.

[sandorski]

http://thereforegodexists.com/2012/06/can-one-disconfirm-a-universal-negative/

Can One Disconfirm A Universal Negative?

June 4, 2012 - Uncategorized

Atheists typically circulate talking points which they find on the internet. They are so convinced of the truth of these claims (probably based on the success or lack of opposition to them) that they neglect to really investigate the issue at all.

A good example of this is in their substitution of defending the atheistic worldview. Instead of offering a real reason for believing that God does not exist, they instead offer statements such as, “You cannot prove a universal negative.” Since the statement “God does not exist” is a universal negative, they claim that it is not a provable statement, and that therefore they are not obligated to provide any reasons for believing that God does not exist.

This would not be something that one would find in an academic setting; just in the atheist blogosphere, for the statement, “You cannot prove a universal negative,” is incredibly naïve, and demonstrably false.

Now, this raises the question, “What is a universal negative?” A universal negative is a negation of all aspects of a category of the world. For instance, “No dogs are mean” is a universal negative, because it speaks to the dog category, and rejects a certain aspect of them. They are universally not mean. In contrast, the statement, “All dogs are kind,” is a universal affirmative, because it speaks to the entirety of the dog category, but confirms something about them. Atheists assert that “God does not exist,” is a universal negative, and because one cannot prove or disprove a universal negative, they therefore need not offer any arguments for their position.

Any universal affirmative can be reworded into a universal negative. For instance, “All dogs are kind,” can be reworded as to mean, “No dogs are mean.” If one could not disprove the statement, “No dogs are mean,” It would also follow that one could not disprove the statement, “All dogs are kind.” So if it were the case that a universal negative could not be confirmed or rejected, it would also follow logically that a universal affirmative could not be confirmed or rejected.

If this model were adopted by contemporary scientists, it would be completely destructive of any human progress. For the statement, “We cannot learn infer anything by investigating the natural world,” could not refuted as a consequence of this philosophical rule. This line of thinking, that one cannot confirm or reject a universal negative would actually be completely destructive of science and human advancement. It would usher in an age of severe post-modernism, wherein scholars and academics would be considered enlightened for uttering statements such as “All truth is relative.”

But that does not mean that therefore this perspective is false. One cannot change the truth, simply because they do not like its’ conclusion. So is it the case that we cannot confirm or deny a universal negative? Well, let us simply look at the example that I provided.

“No dogs are mean,” is a universal negative. However, if we find even a single mean dog, it follows that this universal negative has been refuted. Since there are mean dogs, it follows that in fact, this universal negative is refuted. But that entails that it is possible to refute universal negatives.

Since it is possible to disconfirm a universal negative, one would look at the existence of God. Is it possible to disconfirm that? If one found traits within God that contradicted each other, and there was no solution to it, it would follow that God could not exist. So not only is it possible to disconfirm a universal negative, it is also possible to disconfirm the existence of God.

The problem is that there is no persuasive argument against the existence of God. This is precisely why atheists retreat to the position that does not require any sort of arguments.

Moreover, the argument that one cannot confirm or disconfirm a universal negative, and therefore cannot confirm or disconfirm the nonexistence of God, is doubly fallacious. The statement “God does not exist,” is not a universal negative. It is a singular negative. Singular negatives are clearly open to disconfirmation. “I am not wearing sneakers,” is a singular negative. You could confirm or disconfirm that statement.

So this evasion tactic is very easy to bypass, and is predicated upon ill logic, and a very naïve understanding of the philosophical terms that they are posing. They will have to resort to presenting arguments if they mean to propose atheism as an alternative to Christianity.

Edit: Now that I have time, I will expand.

This is a terrible argument and I question the authors intent or the amount of time he spent thinking about it. Mainly because he uses the "Atheists'" argument to disprove the "Atheists'" argument.

What I mean by that is, his 3 main parts include a Dog, a kind dog, and a mean dog. One thing should be obvious, all 3 of these things are things that are Evidential. That means we can show EVIDENCE of them. His argument completely falls apart without EVIDENCE.

Without EVIDENCE there is no reason to believe in a claim.

 

[AViking]

that's really disingenuous of you to say that!
Just because what he says he believes, does not mean that he has made stuff up!
It means that you have the right to accept or reject what he has said!

It`s that plain and simple.

Sometimes it's best to apply your logic to something outside of religion to give you some perspective.

If I said that it was self evident that Leprechauns exist would that be a good enough reason?

Is it even worth discussing?

What is the difference between having this discussion and the one with Homeless Harry down at the quicky mart who is currently having a conversation with Arch Angel Michael? Is he making things up or is it just to accept that Arch Angel Michael exists because he's drunk and babbling on about it?

 

[DrPizza]

I find it increasingly comical that through over 1,000 posts not one atheist has attempted to prove there is no God!
Instead they ask us to prove the opposite.....that makes for an interesting discussion!

I have one word to add --- faith

I totally agree!! On both sides of the fence proof seems to be nil.....

You ignored the other half prior to extraordinary evidence. I meant it seriously. I want you to prove that there aren't invisible purple unicorns. The fact that you can't does not mean that the assertion that there are invisible purple unicorns has any validity whatsoever.


So, again, there is zero evidence, zero proof whatsoever in a supreme deity. If there was, then there would be no reason for faith.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I totally agree!! On both sides of the fence proof seems to be nil.....

I can't pass up the opportunity to agree with you on something! :awe:

I don't think it's possible to prove or disprove the existence of god.

As we've established in this thread, believers accept the existence of god based on faith (which is by definition without proof). Clearly there are aspects of what we see around us that believers can take as "evidence" that their faith is well placed, and many of these (including biblical passages) have been pointed out to us. But that "horse was already out of the barn" in the sense that faith-based belief preceded this "evidence". As we've been told, the road to belief is through faith, not proof based on the "evidence".

The skeptics can't prove in the scientific sense that god doesn't exist because that's not the way science works. Science picks the simplest and best explanation (i.e. best theory) for sets of facts as most likely to be true. That best theory can be proven wrong when new facts make some other explanation better. Picking out (i.e. proving?) the best theory is very different from disproving all other theories.

Here's a Feynman quote about UFO's that makes this point more clearly:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers”. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely. That is all.

The bottom line for an agnostic like me is that faith is not a reason to accept something as true. Without objective evidence, none of the myriad beliefs in gods seem likely to be true (not likely enough for me to act on as if true).

personally a case could be made for closing the thread. It has run it`s course....

Another opportunity to agree with you on something! :awe:

 

[sao123]

Will you please let soulcaugher answer, CTD?

Secondly, just because Jerusalem is real doesn't mean Jesus was the son of God... and I don't recall positing that anyway, bro.

You're putting words clearly into my mouth.

If you are talking about Post 759 http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36046157&postcount=759
Nothing in my post stated anything about proving the divinity or Son Of God aspect Jesus. That impossible...
It was however to prove to this guy:

I'm fairly sure I wrote somewhere above that it's possible that Jesus exists just not probable. 99.99% of the evidence supporting his existence is based on the bible.
....
Because the man probably never existed.

That a named Jesus of Nazareth is universally and historically accepted as a real physical person who lived on this earth... based on real archaeological evidence and historical document which are both independent of the bible.

 

[sandorski]

If you are talking about Post 759 http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36046157&postcount=759
Nothing in my post stated anything about proving the divinity or Son Of God aspect Jesus. That impossible...
It was however to prove to this guy:



That a named Jesus of Nazareth is universally and historically accepted as a real physical person who lived on this earth... based on real archaeological evidence and historical document which are both independent of the bible.

That is a gross overstatement.

 

[AViking]

I wasn't aware empirical evidence was citing evidence from authority in circular logic... Im pretty sure it was encouraged.

Do you discount all modern archaeology?

• A Monument unearth in Israel in 1961, having the name Pontius Pilot inscribed on it.
• a burial box of bones, having the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus
• Another burial box containing the words "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." which was verified by the Geologic survey Team in Israel to be untampered and authentic. Also reviewed by Professor Joseph Fitzmyer, expert on 1st Century Aramic Artifacts.
• Until recently, modern scholars doubted the Nazareth even existed at the time Jesus supposedly lived. In 2009, portions of Clay Jars dated to the early 1st century were found in Nazerath, proving the city existed at that time.
• 9 Separate 1st Century Historians / Officials acknowledge that Jesus was a real person and wrote about him: Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus, Roman Historians Tacitus and Suetonius. Roman Government Officials: Pliny the Younger and Emporer Trajan.
  Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion and Lucian of Samosate.
  

And much more... Do you deny all this archaeology?
http://y-jesus.com/wp-content/tcpdf-pdf/1848.pdf

In fact there is more archaeological evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus of Nazerath, than there is for both Ceasar Augustus and Alexander the Great, I don't see anyone questioning that they were in fact real persons.

All the trolling made me lose this. Lets keep it honest though and continue.

1. What does Pontius Pilate have to do with Jesus being real? Writing a story about a fake person in a real location with real people does not make him any more real than Zeus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

2. Same thing goes for Caiaphus really plus...

"The authenticity of that discovery has been challenged by some scholars on various grounds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas

3. The James Ossuary had me very interested a decade or so ago. I followed it in the news but it's really not that exciting anymore.

Authenticity of the inscription has been challenged. The Israeli Antiquities Authority determined in 2003 that the inscriptions were forged at a much later date.[5][6]

The owner of the ossuary is Oded Golan, an Israeli engineer and antiquities collector.[7] In December 2004, Golan was charged with 44 counts of forgery, fraud and deception, including forgery of the Ossuary inscription.[8] On October 3, 2010 court proceedings for the trial of Golan and a co-defendant concluded.

On March 14, 2012, Golan was acquitted of the forgery charges but convicted of illegal trading in antiquities.[9] The judge said this acquittal "does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago."[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary

4. I wasn't even aware that Nazerath was controversial. Still, we're on point 4 and nothing provides any evidence, even indirectly for Jesus being a real person. Lets see if point 5 is any better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

5. First century historians. This is the one that interests me the most since I think it really is where the any truth will be found. Maybe we'll get lucky and find the body of Jesus or some scrolls from the time of his life one day but until then the historical record is really what we have.

None of the historians there during his life wrote about him. The soonest anyone wrote about him was many years after his death and by people who were not there even born at the time. It's not that crazy really for things to not be documented on the spot like they are today. Oral tradition was still strong and things would be written down after the fact. In some cases long after the fact.

The issue with Jesus is that he was the son of god. He was born to a virgin mother with angels present, performed amazing miracles, and rose from the dead.

This man who you insist is real based on the evidence above would have been the greatest man to have ever lived yet no historians at the time wrote about him. Worse yet we can see that parts of the bible are unauthentic and worse yet huge parts of the bible are written by people who never saw Jesus and admit it.

You listed a few names that I have never seen attributed to the historical record of Jesus. Emperor Trajan for example who was born 20 years after Jesus died and Lucian who wrote a satire about Christians but was born almost 100 years after Jesus died. Neither of these people or any of the others you mentioned were present. So the real question I have is what about the people who were there?

Ever heard of Philo? The man lived in Alexandria and visited Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and was a historian. He talks about all kinds of stuff but nothing about Jesus. If I'm not mistaken we have about 1,000,000 words from Philo yet not a single mention of Jesus. Does this not bother you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

This is an argument from silence and I do apologize. However neither you nor I have much to work with since there is no archaeological evidence and no written evidence to work with. The closest thing we have is the next generation.

 

[dphantom]

Ever heard of Philo? The man lived in Alexandria and visited Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and was a historian. He talks about all kinds of stuff but nothing about Jesus. If I'm not mistaken we have about 1,000,000 words from Philo yet not a single mention of Jesus. Does this not bother you?

It is possible since Philo was from the more well to do Jewish community, and the Jews at the time were probably loath to ever acknowledge someone like Jesus, that Philo would not write about Jesus.

At the same time, it is amazing that a historical figure whose Church numbers well over 2billion followers could possibly have so much influence against overwhelming odds if He did not exist.

 

[richaron]

At the same time, it is amazing that a historical figure whose Church numbers well over 2billion followers could possibly have so much influence against overwhelming odds if He did not exist.

It's not amazing. It's part of the human condition to want answers, our subconscious yearns for answers to every question we can think of; it's part of what has driven the development of culture and intellect.

Like all good conspiracy theories and psychological illness, it's impossible to disprove the existence of a space wizard once someone has faith. The existence of a space wizards fulfill our yearning for answers ("Wizard did it") and fear of the unknown ("It's cool, Wizard's got a plan").

 

[AViking]

It is possible since Philo was from the more well to do Jewish community, and the Jews at the time were probably loath to ever acknowledge someone like Jesus, that Philo would not write about Jesus.

Why would they be loathe to acknowledge GOD?! A man who could walk on water, cure the sick, raise the dead, and was the messiah?

The Jews were and still are waiting for the messiah. The problem is that they don't believe Jesus was the man. I wonder why? Could it be because the man did not exist and did not impress upon them? It seems far more logical that none of the miracles happened and that the man might not have existed than that the Jews saw all this and just rejected it.

If god came down today and performed miracles on TV, including raising the dead, do you think that the Hindus, Muslims, and every other religion would reject it? Oh TV can be faked. What if he did it at the Superbowl halftime show? Olympics opening ceremony? In front of the UN? In the middle of Mecha, Jerusalem, Amristar, Rome, Lumbini, and Salt Lake City?

Why would ANYONE reject that?

At the same time, it is amazing that a historical figure whose Church numbers well over 2billion followers could possibly have so much influence against overwhelming odds if He did not exist.

Actually it's not. Once again remove yourself from religion so that you can objectively look at this. Have you ever studied business? The psychology of influence and compliance is fascinating and can explain all manner of automatic responses that we make.

 

[dphantom]

Why would they be loathe to acknowledge GOD?! A man who could walk on water, cure the sick, raise the dead, and was the messiah?

Judaism rejects Jesus as a false messiah. In Judaism (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) the Trinity is considered heretical so Jesus could never be the Son of God.

Actually it's not. Once again remove yourself from religion so that you can objectively look at this. Have you ever studied business? The psychology of influence and compliance is fascinating and can explain all manner of automatic responses that we make.

I have looked at it objectively. And I have studied business, owned 2 businesses and sold them. Yes it is fascinating the psychology. But to me, these are more excuses for rejecting God, rather than convincing proof he did not exist.

 

[richaron]

I have looked at it objectively. And I have studied business, owned 2 businesses and sold them. Yes it is fascinating the psychology. But to me, these are more excuses for rejecting God, rather than convincing proof he did not exist.

It appears you a deluding youself into thinking one can have both objectivity and faith with regards to religion, this is obviously not true. I'm not using this as a point against religion, just pointing out a glaring logical problem.

As I'm sure many people have pointed out previously (and a few above), even mentioning the concept of ~proof god does not exist~ is absurd. As mentioned before, how is this any different to proving leprechauns don't exist, or unicorns, or anything else equally ridiculous. The idea has already been thrown around ad nauseum with ideas such as Russell's teapot, but a much better solution is the objective idea that negative proof is a logical fallacy.

Whether you realize it or not, you have just stated: the thing which would make you reconsider your stance is an impossible proof. A thought which gains nothing but contempt by the truly objective.

 

[AViking]

How can these be excuses for rejecting god? They are explanations why we do worship god and are religious. We are compliant and are programmed to follow authority and not question every little thing.

You should check out some of the literature. Not for religious reasons since that's really just a side topic but because it will help you make better purchasing decisions.

You have also completely ignored what I said above of how ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, could reject Jesus if he truly existed.

 

[Retro Rob]

You have also completely ignored what I said above of how ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, could reject Jesus if he truly existed.

False dicotomy.

Could it be that people simply ignore the evidence for his existence (as you have completely hand-waved testimony from Tacitus in this thread)?

Are you saying that the rejection of Jesus means he didn't exist? If yes, then does that mean that the acceptance of God means God exists?

 

[AViking]

Testimony from Tacitus? That guy was born a quarter of a century after Jesus supposedly died.

I'm saying that if Jesus was real then ANYONE who saw him and his miracles would be a believer. The thousands of people who he performed in front of would have spread the word and historians and scholars at the time would have rejoiced and written down the word.

Instead his contemporaries never mentioned him.

 

[richaron]

Are you saying that the rejection of Jesus means he didn't exist? If yes, then does that mean that the acceptance of God means God exists?

False dicotomy indeed.

 

[Exophase]

Why would they be loathe to acknowledge GOD?! A man who could walk on water, cure the sick, raise the dead, and was the messiah?

Why do you keep doing this? You argue evidence that Jesus is not based on any kind of historical figure at all, and when someone counters it you say "but if he was GOD..." Then you say you have no interest in whether he was based on a historical figure but you keep going back to arguing against that.

And no, I don't personally think it'd be especially conspicuous for Philo to not write about this historical Jesus. Someone who visited Jerusalem not necessarily more than once in his lifetime, mainly wrote about philosophy with a bit of his personal experiences mixed in, and didn't take the Bible literally (so probably wouldn't be hostile over Jews regarding their religious beliefs nor supportive of a movement supporting Biblical literalism, a middling position that could inspire apathy)

I do however agree with you that if there was a Jesus performing great miracles in front of eye-witnesses it probably wouldn't have escaped notice, people would have probably come far and wide to see it and write about it. That'd probably have a more direct impact on the subject matter of Philo's writings.

 

[Retro Rob]

Testimony from Tacitus? That guy was born a quarter of a century after Jesus supposedly died.

So, you're holding history to an unreasonble standard. You're unwilling to accept any testimony "unless they personally saw it" (and ironically, reject the persons who wrote the Gospels...those were "witnesses" ).

My conclusion is you're simply incredulous. Nothing can help that.

EDIT:

I'm done with Aviking, and he keeps moving goalposts and being so dishonest in what he wants as "evidence".

 

[Retro Rob]

Why do you keep doing this? You argue evidence that Jesus is not based on any kind of historical figure at all, and when someone counters it you say "but if he was GOD..." Then you say you have no interest in whether he was based on a historical figure but you keep going back to arguing against that.

And no, I don't personally think it'd be especially conspicuous for Philo to not write about this historical Jesus. Someone who visited Jerusalem not necessarily more than once in his lifetime, mainly wrote about philosophy with a bit of his personal experiences mixed in, and didn't take the Bible literally (so probably wouldn't be hostile over Jews regarding their religious beliefs nor supportive of a movement supporting Biblical literalism, a middling position that could inspire apathy)

I do however agree with you that if there was a Jesus performing great miracles in front of eye-witnesses it probably wouldn't have escaped notice, people would have probably come far and wide to see it and write about it. That'd probably have a more direct impact on the subject matter of Philo's writings.

Yep, he keeps moving goalposts. He needs to be honest in that he won't accept that Jesus was a man who lived 2000 years ago no matter what anyone shows him.

I can respect that if he just comes clean.

 

[AViking]

I showed above that not only is Jesus as a man not something that can be proven but that Jesus as a god is even more improbable and lacking a single shred of evidence. If he was a man then what evidence do you have to support it? None. If he was a god then what evidence do you have to support that? None. You listed a bunch of things that are either not supported as authentic or are authentic and are from people who are a generation or more removed from any man or god named jesus. I asked a simple question about how a man who would have been at the scene of the biggest historical event in human history could not have mentioned it.

You have your faith. Good for you. I then went on to show that your faith is a product of your programming and automatic compliance. I tried to be nice about it too so that I wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings.

 

[Retro Rob]

I showed above that not only is Jesus as a man not something that can be proven but that Jesus as a god is even more improbable and lacking a single shred of evidence. If he was a man then what evidence do you have to support it? None. If he was a god then what evidence do you have to support that? None. You listed a bunch of things that are either not supported as authentic or are authentic and are from people who are a generation or more removed from any man or god named jesus. I asked a simple question about how a man who would have been at the scene of the biggest historical event in human history could not have mentioned it.

You have your faith. Good for you. I then went on to show that your faith is a product of your programming and automatic compliance. I tried to be nice about it too so that I wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings.

It takes a lot more to hurt my feelings than calling my faith "automatic compliance".

I'm not 12 years old..

 

[AViking]

Well your response seems to indicate that I hurt your feelings and I'm sorry. Like I said it was not my intention.

Speaking of which. If I was to say to you that Islam is a better religion than Christianity how does that make you feel? How do you feel knowing that Christianity is waning and will be overtaken by Islam in the near future? I don't think it was more than a few years ago that Islam actually became the largest religion in the world if you divide Christianity up into it's sects. Roman Catholicism being the largest reported maybe a decade ago that Islam is now the largest religion in the world. Does that hurt your feelings and make you feel bad?

 

[Exophase]

If he was a man then what evidence do you have to support it? None.

Well I'm sorry you disagree, but Tacitus's testimony qualifies as evidence. You brush it away completely because it was written long after the events it's referring to. But it's not just citing what an opposed group believed at the time, it's coming from a high ranking member of Roman government referring to an official act of Rome. This person was also a historian and probably well read on whatever historical documents/records were available to him at the time. Yes, it's possible that he was going on hearsay on what Rome did, but it's reasonable to believe he had an interest in not misrepresenting Rome while giving his enemies the benefit of the doubt. I also suspect that had this instigating figure never been crucifies in the first place there would have been a culture within Roman government of denying this crucifixion (particular since, again, according to Tacitus - but based on something that would have probably been verifiable to him - Christians were a disliked group in Rome during the 60s AD). Such a thing may not have been apparent now to us but it should have still been apparent to Tacitus in his time.

No, that doesn't mean that it's iron-clad by any means. Not all single pieces of evidence are as strong as others. That doesn't mean you can just say it's not evidence at all. Statements like these are antagonistic to historical research. Throwing it away immediately because of the time when he wrote it is just refusing to think about it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well your response seems to indicate that I hurt your feelings and I'm sorry. Like I said it was not my intention.

Lol OK.

Speaking of which. If I was to say to you that Islam is a better religion than Christianity how does that make you feel?

I'd say "so what"?

How do you feel knowing that Christianity is waning and will be overtaken by Islam in the near future?

I'd say the influence of Christianity (and religion is general) is waning...and that, my freind, is a good thing. Religion has its place, but its place isn't in charge of the world.

I don't think it was more than a few years ago that Islam actually became the largest religion in the world if you divide Christianity up into it's sects.

Again, so what? Is larger, better?

Roman Catholicism being the largest reported maybe a decade ago that Islam is now the largest religion in the world. Does that hurt your feelings and make you feel bad?

Who said I was a Catholic to being with? And again, larger isn't better, or I can make the claim that religion is better than atheism becasue the number of those who adhere to/believe in God greatly outweighs those who profess no belief in any deity.

Does that hurt your feelings, knowing that your ilk is greatly outnumbered?

 

[sandorski]

So, you're holding history to an unreasonble standard. You're unwilling to accept any testimony "unless they personally saw it" (and ironically, reject the persons who wrote the Gospels...those were "witnesses" ).

My conclusion is you're simply incredulous. Nothing can help that.

EDIT:

I'm done with Aviking, and he keeps moving goalposts and being so dishonest in what he wants as "evidence".

False