(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by S.A.M., Jul 10, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    No, I simply said "swans are white". The statement could be disproved by showing a swan of any other hue except white.

    No, the claims :

    there are no pink swans
    there are no blue swans
    there are no green swans

    are not equal to the claim

    swans are white.

    I'm beginning to fear what people like you will do with science.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    Yeah, I noticed. "Swans are white" is a logically ambiguous claim which can be -- and must be -- interpreted in one of two ways:
    A) "all" swans are white
    B) "some" swans are white
    It is clear that you mean A. After all, showing a swan of of a hue other than white would disprove A but not B. So like I've already said, the claim we are working with is that "all swans are white." So far so good.

    Actually they are, since we have established that the claim under consideration is that all swans are white. A swan cannot be simultaneously white and pink, nor white and blue, nor white and green. It is one or the other. Thus, the top three claims can all be logically deduced from the claim "all swans are white."

    So to summarize what we've established so far:
    • You cannot prove an inductive claim.
    • You can prove a negative claim (provided that it is not an inductive claim).

    I noticed that you avoided addressing the issue.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    You're assuming the claims are simultaneous. "There are no pink swans" [There is no God] does not come with an accompanying claim of "Swans are white" [There is ????]
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, but if you continue along that line and find there aren't swans of any color.. well..
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    SAM:

    This is why I advised you never to gamble. This is news to you, is it?

    Fine. Atheists can wait till Saturday to find out if God exists. In the meantime, it's fair enough to assume that God doesn't exist. Right?

    Many a true word is said in jest.

    I'd say it was a unicorn, on the assumption that my child understands the difference between an image of a thing and the thing the image references.

    Are you going anywhere with this, or just spinning your wheels?

    Ok.

    Did you miss the TWO explanations of the error in this? It is an error of logic - a fallacy - known as "affirming the consequent". Here's another example, in negative form:

    1. Birds have no antlers.
    2. My dog has no antlers.
    3. Therefore, my dog is a bird.

    Statement #1 can be written:

    "If X is a bird, then X has no antlers."

    The converse of this is:

    "If X has no antlers, then X is a bird."

    Quite clearly, the statement does not imply its converse, but this is what is assumed in the faulty example above.

    A statement in which the converse MUST apply would be of the form:

    "X has no antlers IF AND ONLY IF it is a bird."

    which is equivalent to:

    "X is a bird IF AND ONLY IF it has no antlers."

    (Beware of misconstruing the language of formal logic in the term "IF AND ONLY IF", by the way. This can be given a very clear and precise mathematical definition, where the logical operator "IF AND ONLY IF" is called "equivalence", whereas the simple "IF" is called "implication".)

    Happy?
     
  9. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    "Simultaneous" has nothing to do with it -- this is about the formal axioms of logic, axioms of which it is becoming increasingly clear you haven't the faintest grasp.

    It's true that "swans are white" cannot be logically deduced from "there are no pink swans." Not only did I never state this at any point, but it's completely irrelevant and nonsensical. You seem to think that a deduction has to work in both directions. But that's simply not how logical deduction works. Deducing a claim from a set of premises is not the same as restating that claim in terms of its negation. Do not confuse the two.

    In any case, we are considering the claim "[all] swans are white." The statement "There are no pink swans" can be logically deduced from this claim, as can the statement "there are no blue swans," as can statements against swans of any color other than white. Thus, "[all] swans are white" is logically equivalent to "There are no swans that are not white" -- i.e., the negation of the original claim. So like I continue to say, the two swan claims you originally presented are equal. And you can prove a negative, etc. etc.

    Finally, I'll ask you one more time: will you return to the topic of the "incompatibility" of science and atheism and address my points in post #28?
     
  10. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I guess she meant synonymous.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    "There is no object or being fitting the definition of 'God' that exists."

    or

    "There does not exist any being or object fitting the definition of 'God'."
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Whats the definition of God?

    No I meant simultaneous. If I told you there is no pink shirt in the closet, it does not mean all shirts are white.
     
  13. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    This is the GST forum. In case you thought it was Religion.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    "There is no God" doesn't sound like an assumption.

    Yes, I am showing you that unicorns exist. You recognise one when you see it. Not only that, you are willing to identify it for others to recognise in the future.




    I still see lots of positive claims in there, which are the ones being disproven. Try and do it ONLY with negative claims. Atheism if you recall has NO positive claims.
     
  16. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    Fine. I hope James R doesn't mind me answering responses directed to him. Do not take these in any way other than that I said them. Time to start disproving :\.
    Actually lawl that conversation went nowhere. I feel sorry for James R, as there really isn't a point for him to keep talking. And yes, atheism has no positive claims, it has one negative claim. One. :\

    Look, there are two possibilities, one that God exists and one that God does not. In scenario A, we have to remove all Laws and theories in Classical physics and probably a lot of other fields. There is also no evidence for the affirmative claim. When there is no evidence for an affirmative claim, especially one that REQUIRES it (as one that claims that all/most classical and other types of physics are/is wrong), you must default to the negative. I don't know why I typed that all out, since this seems to be entirely off topic.

    I might as well respond to whatever I can remember from the OP.

    Uh, the more science you know the higher chance it is you are an atheist. Does that sound like a real answer to the OP's question? :\

    Edit: Fuck it. I'm multiquoting all of SAM's posts and answering them all. It's 7:30 on a OMG IT'S SATURDAY TIME FOR CARTOONS morning anyway. :\
     
  17. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    It's not. Well, there goes this thread. Although, every religion I can think of is incompatible with science. It's a well known proposition anyway.

    Yes. Atheism is compatible with everything, except theism. Also some random beliefs that are theistic in nature anyway. I'd be in uproar, not believing in things without evidence is what science is about/

    Nobody cares about people too religious that they get offended at the idea that science is secular. They will not contribute anyway. No, atheists shouldn't reconsider. This is a terrible idea.

    Changing the name to atheistforums (how the hell is that a word?) would be completely unnecessary. Although, it is pretty funny how it's called SciForums. It's supposed to be a science forum. Science entails atheism, unless you feel like being hypocritical. Fairly simple. Name it after what it's about, not what it entails or implies. You are terrible with the ideas.

    I couldn't get through the rest of this thread. I wish you guys the best.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    on what basis?
    the older i get the more i'm convinced that faith and love can easily outstrip any measly act performed by mankind.
     
  19. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    Look up two posts. The very bottom of it is part of the basis I'm sure James R would agree upon.
     
  20. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    Doesn't that depend on how "far" someone's belief goes for something?

    I'm not sure about this but doesn't it play a role that most forms of theism have a "set of rules" which you have to believe in, and/or follow in order to be a part of said religion. Sadly most of those rules and beliefs would be in contradiction with Sciences' practices, wouldn't they?

    Theism in the unspecific sense would be probably okay. If you believe in a God without having to follow a doctrine that would unnecessarily block you then it's fine.

    Atheism itself is probably more compatible with Sciences since it doesn't limit a person to an extent where he would have to wash his feet before performing a surgery. (Oh f*ck I forgot to wash my hands?! Bah doesn't matter as long as my feet are clean *proceeds with plunging hands into guts*).
    I was always wondering how come that theists don't feel bad when experimenting with corpses and God's creations. Isn't it a bit unchristian? (random...just curious)

    Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there are good scientists from both cateogories; atheism and theism.
    All that matters is how much does your belief limit you in your work as a scientist. Atheism is probably because of that accepted as the more compatible of the two since atheism doesn't involve doctrines, or anything that would limit a scientist.
     
  21. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What does that have to do with the word 'simultaneous' ?
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    wrong.
    simply, flatly wrong.
    there is not one shred of evidence that points to a "natural" origin of life.
    there is no evidence at all that macro evolution has occurred.
    the fossil record, to my knowledge, does not confirm macro evolution.

    in my opinion this is why the scientific law of biogenesis was ousted from its rightful place of an undisputed law and replaced with the hypothesis* of abiogenesis, so "they" could push macro evolution.

    a better word would be "guess" or "conjecture".
     
  23. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    I noticed, SAM, that you are avoiding addressing my last post. Should I take this as an indication that I have soundly refuted your malformed ideas?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page