News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Catholic Church "Miracles"

Started by Paolo, December 07, 2020, 12:58:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Cl

Cannot prove a negative?  Yeah, you can.
You Can Prove a Negative:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative

"The fact is, however, that this supposed "law of logic" is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic."

"It depends in part on what you mean by "prove." The word has a variety of meanings. By saying something is "proved," I might mean that it is established beyond all possible doubt. Or I might mean it has been established beyond reasonable doubt (this is the kind of proof required in a court of law). Can we establish beyond reasonable doubt that unicorns have never inhabited the earth? True, the history of our planet has been and gone, so we can no longer directly inspect it. But surely, if unicorns did roam the earth, we would expect to find some evidence of their presence, such as fossils of unicorns or at least of closely related animals from which unicorns might plausibly have evolved. There is none. We also have plenty of evidence that unicorns are a fictional creation, in which case, it's surely reasonable for us to conclude that there never were any unicorns. Indeed, I'd suggest we can prove this beyond reasonable doubt."

In the above paragraph, substitute Jesus for unicorn.  From my studies, it has been proven to me that both Jesus and God are fictions.  The lack of any credible evidence that shows the Jesus of the christians ever existed is proof.  This is a case where the lack of evidence is proof there is no evidence, hence the accounts of Jesus are all fictions and propaganda.  The same for god.  Just no evidence.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

#346
Quote from: Paolo on March 11, 2021, 08:53:23 AM
Anyway, I meant not for this question to be some sort of ''challenge to skeptics'', I simply meant something like: has this been ''debunked'', like say, in a MythBusters episode kind of way? I genuinely just wanted to know.
It's not the skeptics job to debunk every silly or extraordinary claim the Church makes.  It is the responsibility of the Church to prove it true.  Since they can't, they try to foist the responsibility on others to prove they are wrong.  This is a common tactic of theists when debating.  And then they get all high and mighty like they won a debate, probably because they are too stupid to understand that nonsense requires proof of, not proof against.

You do the same thing, and then try to recover by saying, "I'm only asking."  You find an absurd claim and ask others to prove it wrong.  YOU should prove it wrong rather duck the responsibility yourself.  Or better yet, prove it's right.  Then it's case closed, finalized, the matter settled, and you would have accomplished something.  Learn to think for yourself rather than set yourself up as a nonsense nuisance asking others to rise to your silly questions.  Do you wonder why  you have not been taken seriously here? 

SGOS

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 11, 2021, 10:15:24 AM
Cannot prove a negative?  Yeah, you can.
You Can Prove a Negative:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative

"The fact is, however, that this supposed "law of logic" is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic."
Paolo should now address all further questions to you.  We will all enjoy seeing you prove his negatives.  I am not up to the task myself, and we will all be happy for you to take on the challenge.

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on March 11, 2021, 10:55:39 AM
Paolo should now address all further questions to you.  We will all enjoy seeing you prove his negatives.  I am not up to the task myself, and we will all be happy for you to take on the challenge.
I have 'proven' Jesus did not exist in these threads.  Note, I did not say I would set out to prove all negatives.  What I said was that the suggestion that we cannot prove any negatives is not so.  It is a popular saying in that I've heard it myself all my life.  And I pretty much went along with it.  That is until I was deeply into my Jesus research.  I changed my mind about the idea that we cannot use the lack of evidence for a Jesus as any kind of proof.  It seems to me that a total lack of evidence is indeed, proof there is no evidence.  Therefore the lack of evidence for a christian jesus is proof he did not exist.  Same line of reasoning for the unicorn in the above post.  The same thing can be said for the existence of any god.  Having said the above, I am ready and able to change my mind about any of it if somebody can supply some evidence that what I have said is inaccurate. 

I will be happy to tackle any and all questions from Paolo--if I'm interested.  The same for any other question, from any other source.  I am just tired of hearing the statement that the lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence of anything.  Why?  Because it is not correct.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 11, 2021, 11:40:34 AM
I am just tired of hearing the statement that the lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence of anything.  Why?  Because it is not correct.
I've also read this position before.  You are correct and it isn't a big leap to see that there are a minefield of exceptions and caveats in that over simplified "rule" about negatives, but I don't think the claim was intended to pedantically correct, and that most skeptics, except for Paolo and others, understand that it applies to the unprovables where there is no evidence. 

It's the classic theist gambit when they have no proof to ask for proof against, thinking that at a minimum, it puts their argument on equal footing with unbelievers, and this is what I think most skeptics understand.  But once again, you are correct; Some negatives can be proved.

But I don't go there. I've seen atheists offer proof that there is no god, but I remain unimpressed. God concepts are crafted in a way that they cannot be dealt with through logical objection.  The fallacy of apologetics parries all objections with on the spot solutions that eventually terminate with "God is beyond human understanding," the last defense in the theist house of cards and the ultimate claim that cannot be proved or disproved, but solves any and all objections, at least in the mind of the Pope.

In my mind all Jesus arguments become irrelevant when we come to the part where we must identify "which Jesus?"  The Bible Jesus or some ancient zealot that may or may not have been named Jesus, but never the less went about the countryside yelling about Doomsday doesn't lend credibility to the Bible Jesus or no Jesus.  I'm pretty sure it was likely, even more so in ancient times, that some unknown soothsayer with no access to medications for schizophrenia probably existed, but not necessarily.

I agree that you can prove some negatives if you have enough information to formulate proofs.  Whether there is enough to disprove "a" Jesus, not the Bible Jesus, is something in my mind that requires more than courtroom standards for "beyond reasonable doubt," which is less than scientific standards would require. I do agree strongly that the lack of credible documentation of a Bible Jesus or even some distant cousin upon which the myth was built, is a very strong case against the Bible Jesus.  But it doesn't meet my subjective understanding of beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it did, I still can't see why it would be relevant to a skeptic.

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on March 11, 2021, 02:17:58 PM
I've also read this position before.  You are correct and it isn't a big leap to see that there are a minefield of exceptions and caveats in that over simplified "rule" about negatives, but I don't think the claim was intended to pedantically correct, and that most skeptics, except for Paolo and others, understand that it applies to the unprovables where there is no evidence. 

It's the classic theist gambit when they have no proof to ask for proof against, thinking that at a minimum, it puts their argument on equal footing with unbelievers, and this is what I think most skeptics understand.  But once again, you are correct; Some negatives can be proved.

But I don't go there. I've seen atheists offer proof that there is no god, but I remain unimpressed. God concepts are crafted in a way that they cannot be dealt with through logical objection.  The fallacy of apologetics parries all objections with on the spot solutions that eventually terminate with "God is beyond human understanding," the last defense in the theist house of cards and the ultimate claim that cannot be proved or disproved, but solves any and all objections, at least in the mind of the Pope.

In my mind all Jesus arguments become irrelevant when we come to the part where we must identify "which Jesus?"  The Bible Jesus or some ancient zealot that may or may not have been named Jesus, but never the less went about the countryside yelling about Doomsday doesn't lend credibility to the Bible Jesus or no Jesus.  I'm pretty sure it was likely, even more so in ancient times, that some unknown soothsayer with no access to medications for schizophrenia probably existed, but not necessarily.

I agree that you can prove some negatives if you have enough information to formulate proofs.  Whether there is enough to disprove "a" Jesus, not the Bible Jesus, is something in my mind that requires more than courtroom standards for "beyond reasonable doubt," which is less than scientific standards would require. I do agree strongly that the lack of credible documentation of a Bible Jesus or even some distant cousin upon which the myth was built, is a very strong case against the Bible Jesus.  But it doesn't meet my subjective understanding of beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it did, I still can't see why it would be relevant to a skeptic.
Yes, I agree with almost all of what you said.  The key to the whole thing is that in your 'subjective understanding' it  isn't far enough beyond a reasonable doubt.  But it is in my subjective understanding.  And that is all I can hope for.  I have learned long, long ago using logic and reasonable thinking with a theist will get one nowhere; they deal only in belief and faith.  So, the study I undertook was for my own understanding and I did not have any illusion it would persuade a single theist to my point of view.  I realized it was for my subjective understanding and it convinced only one--me. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Paolo

Quote from: SGOS on March 11, 2021, 02:17:58 PM
I've also read this position before.  You are correct and it isn't a big leap to see that there are a minefield of exceptions and caveats in that over simplified "rule" about negatives, but I don't think the claim was intended to pedantically correct, and that most skeptics, except for Paolo and others, understand that it applies to the unprovables where there is no evidence. 

It's the classic theist gambit when they have no proof to ask for proof against, thinking that at a minimum, it puts their argument on equal footing with unbelievers, and this is what I think most skeptics understand.  But once again, you are correct; Some negatives can be proved.

But I don't go there. I've seen atheists offer proof that there is no god, but I remain unimpressed. God concepts are crafted in a way that they cannot be dealt with through logical objection.  The fallacy of apologetics parries all objections with on the spot solutions that eventually terminate with "God is beyond human understanding," the last defense in the theist house of cards and the ultimate claim that cannot be proved or disproved, but solves any and all objections, at least in the mind of the Pope.

In my mind all Jesus arguments become irrelevant when we come to the part where we must identify "which Jesus?"  The Bible Jesus or some ancient zealot that may or may not have been named Jesus, but never the less went about the countryside yelling about Doomsday doesn't lend credibility to the Bible Jesus or no Jesus.  I'm pretty sure it was likely, even more so in ancient times, that some unknown soothsayer with no access to medications for schizophrenia probably existed, but not necessarily.

I agree that you can prove some negatives if you have enough information to formulate proofs.  Whether there is enough to disprove "a" Jesus, not the Bible Jesus, is something in my mind that requires more than courtroom standards for "beyond reasonable doubt," which is less than scientific standards would require. I do agree strongly that the lack of credible documentation of a Bible Jesus or even some distant cousin upon which the myth was built, is a very strong case against the Bible Jesus.  But it doesn't meet my subjective understanding of beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it did, I still can't see why it would be relevant to a skeptic.

That is an interesting discussion. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''? But wasn't he who also said that ''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''?

So was he, in your opinion, contradicting himself?
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Paolo

Quote from: SGOS on March 11, 2021, 10:36:53 AM
It's not the skeptics job to debunk every silly or extraordinary claim the Church makes.  It is the responsibility of the Church to prove it true.  Since they can't, they try to foist the responsibility on others to prove they are wrong.  This is a common tactic of theists when debating.  And then they get all high and mighty like they won a debate, probably because they are too stupid to understand that nonsense requires proof of, not proof against.

You do the same thing, and then try to recover by saying, "I'm only asking."  You find an absurd claim and ask others to prove it wrong.  YOU should prove it wrong rather duck the responsibility yourself.  Or better yet, prove it's right.  Then it's case closed, finalized, the matter settled, and you would have accomplished something.  Learn to think for yourself rather than set yourself up as a nonsense nuisance asking others to rise to your silly questions.  Do you wonder why  you have not been taken seriously here?

I just asked a question. Is that so hard to understand?
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

SGOS

Quote from: Paolo on March 12, 2021, 09:55:33 AM
That is an interesting discussion. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''? But wasn't he who also said that ''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''?

So was he, in your opinion, contradicting himself?
No.  They are both true.

SGOS

Quote from: Paolo on March 12, 2021, 09:59:46 AM
I just asked a question. Is that so hard to understand?
It's a stupid question.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Paolo on March 12, 2021, 09:55:33 AM
That is an interesting discussion. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''? But wasn't he who also said that ''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''?

What do those two sentences mean to you?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Paolo

#356
Quote from: SGOS on March 12, 2021, 10:08:46 AM
It's a stupid question.

Perhaps you should learn about your own skepticism first. You can't appeal to mere common sense to say that an intact tongue is ''nonsense''. That would beg the question of what ''nonsense'' consists of in the first place. Now, that's stupid.

Perhaps you could explain/justify what nonsense is to you?
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

aitm

Quote from: Paolo on March 12, 2021, 10:54:33 AM
Perhaps you should learn about your own skepticism first. You can't appeal to mere common sense to say that an intact tongue is ''nonsense''. That would beg the question of what ''nonsense'' consists of in the first place. Now, that's stupid.

Perhaps you could explain/justify what nonsense is to you?
Can’t speak for SGOS, but pretty much anything with the word Bible in it.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Hydra009

#358
Quote from: aitm on March 12, 2021, 07:32:39 PMCan’t speak for SGOS, but pretty much anything with the word Bible in it.
I'd expand that to anything supernatural (ghosts, demons, angels, etc) or claims of physical feats beyond what the human body is known to be capable of (i.e. shapeshifting, walking on water unaided, ESP, inedia, etc)

If any of that stuff were to be verified, it would blow open human knowledge and earn its discoverer a huge reward and incredible notoriety.  Silence.  Centuries of silence.  Lots and lots of claims, just no one willing to step up and prove it.  The inevitable provisional conclusion is that it's just people making stuff up.

Paolo

Quote from: aitm on March 12, 2021, 07:32:39 PM
Can’t speak for SGOS, but pretty much anything with the word Bible in it.

I misspoke. I should have said ''how do you justify that an intact tongue is nonsense''?
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....