Originally posted by: yllus
Excellent response, thank you. Let it be known that the statement is not one that I myself made.
I love myself sometimes
I love myself sometimes
The wording makes no sense at all.
If you were to say, "There is no proof that X does not exist. Therefore, I can conclude that X exists", or, "There is no proof that X exists. Therefore, I can conclude that X does not exist.", then I could see how that would be a logical fallacy. But the way that you wrote it isnt' even a fallacy, the sentence doesn't make sense to begin with.
If you were to say, "There is no proof that X does not exist. Therefore, I can conclude that X exists", or, "There is no proof that X exists. Therefore, I can conclude that X does not exist.", then I could see how that would be a logical fallacy. But the way that you wrote it isnt' even a fallacy, the sentence doesn't make sense to begin with.
Am I having deja vu or did you start another thread? :/
Edit: (This is taken from the other thread... you know, the one like three polls ago? )
False
The absence of evidence does not suggest an outcome in either direction.
Oh and as others have said it really depends on the context.
In a closed environment where the system is known in its entirety, then it is easy to make such claims.
In other situations such as approaching the universe with the scientific method approach we look at things differently. For example, we do not know the whole of the universe. We do not even know how many "layers of onions" the laws of physics may go down. Laws of the universe (physics), for example, can never be proven as complete and absolutely correct.
Just the same, we cannot prove the non-existance of phenomenon. HOWEVER, we do take certain preconceived views based on what our experience through experimentation and our own logic lead us to believe based on relative probability.
For example, using what we know about the universe so far and what I perceive, I think it is safe to ASSUME with a high probability that the core of the earth is not held together by the feces of ants. It very well could be, and I cannot prove it either way, but I have a strong suspicion that it is not. The non-exitstence of evidence does not let me come to any factual and concrete conclusion, however. I cannot say with certainty what the center of the earth is comprised of.
Edit: (This is taken from the other thread
... you know, the one like three polls ago? )False
The absence of evidence does not suggest an outcome in either direction.
Oh and as others have said it really depends on the context.
In a closed environment where the system is known in its entirety, then it is easy to make such claims.
In other situations such as approaching the universe with the scientific method approach we look at things differently. For example, we do not know the whole of the universe. We do not even know how many "layers of onions" the laws of physics may go down. Laws of the universe (physics), for example, can never be proven as complete and absolutely correct.
Just the same, we cannot prove the non-existance of phenomenon. HOWEVER, we do take certain preconceived views based on what our experience through experimentation and our own logic lead us to believe based on relative probability.
For example, using what we know about the universe so far and what I perceive, I think it is safe to ASSUME with a high probability that the core of the earth is not held together by the feces of ants. It very well could be, and I cannot prove it either way, but I have a strong suspicion that it is not. The non-exitstence of evidence does not let me come to any factual and concrete conclusion, however. I cannot say with certainty what the center of the earth is comprised of.
That would be a logical fallacy, since you cannot prove a negative. You can directly prove that it does exist, but you cannot directly prove that it doesn't exist.
You can only rationalize one way or the other, but at some point you make a decision based on what you believe the evidence points to. It's obvious we can replace X with God in this case. Some people choose to believe one way or the other based on what they believe makes the most sence. People tend to disagree at this point
Originally posted by: everman
You can only rationalize one way or the other, but at some point you make a decision based on what you believe the evidence points to. It's obvious we can replace X with God in this case. Some people choose to believe one way or the other based on what they believe makes the most sence. People tend to disagree at this point
Basically, I conclude that since I cannot prove that God does not exist, I cannot conclude that he does not exist.
I am not ignorant.
[/thread]
He really needs to change the wording, because the way it's written now makes no sense and is most likely a typo.
I can only think that he's mocking someone who doesn't believe in God, and he's saying that their reason is that they have no proof that God doesn't exist, yet they can somehow conclude that God doesn't exist.
But in that case, the first poster on this page would be right, that "therefore" doesn't make sense in this usage, and "yet" should be used instead.
I can only think that he's mocking someone who doesn't believe in God, and he's saying that their reason is that they have no proof that God doesn't exist, yet they can somehow conclude that God doesn't exist.
But in that case, the first poster on this page would be right, that "therefore" doesn't make sense in this usage, and "yet" should be used instead.
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Basically, I conclude that since I cannot prove that God does not exist, I cannot conclude that he does not exist.Originally posted by: everman
You can only rationalize one way or the other, but at some point you make a decision based on what you believe the evidence points to. It's obvious we can replace X with God in this case. Some people choose to believe one way or the other based on what they believe makes the most sence. People tend to disagree at this point
I am not ignorant.
[/thread]
The reason it doesn't make sense is because it relies on ignorance to remain true.
"If something cannot be proven, it does not exist," is ignorance at its finest, and many of us will not permit such a tragedy...
give yourself a pat on the back for me
I'd say that's a logical fallacy, since you can never prove the non-existence of anything. It's just not possible. Even asking the question is invalid, since you'd be asking for an impossibility.
I can't prove that a magical green dragon isn't sitting next to me. You can't prove negatives.
FALSE, are you sure you didnt misword what you were trying to say.
On a related note, you can mathematically produce statments that can not be proven or disproven. Statements for which you can proove the impossibility of showing either their truth or falsehood.
On a related note, you can mathematically produce statments that can not be proven or disproven. Statements for which you can proove the impossibility of showing either their truth or falsehood.
Yes! What's remarkable is that you can then choose to include an "impossible to prove or disprove" statement into your system as an axiom. Or choose to have it be a false statement. Then you are left with a new larger mathematical system.
And in this new system, you can create new statements that are not provable or disprovable.
In other words, no matter how big your mathematical system is, you can always produce statements that cannot be proved or disproven within the system. It's like some invisible barrier that keeps us from ever knowing everything.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter