Calling Darth Wong or anybody really. Need help.

[bobalot]

Been reading this site for a while, only registered recently. Kind of need help formulating a response to a creationist/philosopher(he makes himself out to be).

I'm in a debate with this guy in a forum about 'god'. He comes up with the monumentally stupid line "Well, you can't prove that God can't exist."

I call bullshit on this and act like a bit of jackass putting him down( I probably shouldn't have, but its annoying having to repeat yourself). I do point out you can't prove something doesn't exist. I also point out the onus is on the person making fantastic beliefs to prove them.

He comes back at me with this:

Very well. I will address your stupid objection (since we are freely throwing around invective here.

The fact of science, with all its evidence, does not negate the explanatory possibility of a deist God since this kind of God could have initiated the causal process to begin with. Indeed, we can keep deferring God as a possible explanation as long as we like by simply placing him as an explanation for whatever cannot, as yet, be explained. God - as an explanatory agent - is very difficult to negate whatever the scientific data may say.

You say that we might as well posit, say, 'the tooth fairy' or 'a magic slug' or whatever instead of 'God.' This reductio argument sounds fine, but actually it is not as great as it seems. Why?

[1] Because I am being even more conservative than you are. I am not, here, talking about the Judeo-Christian God, but a deist God - i.e. that being that has one quality only: the intentional power to initiate the genesis of the universe. He observes but does not, as it were, intervene. He is stripped of all other qualities. So to say 'we might as well say it is the tooth fairy' is to say too much. I am talking here only of the possibility of a being that has supreme power over the genesis of reality. This leads me to my second and main response.

[2] There is a second reason why I dislike this reductio. It is grounded in the belief that there is an arbitrary distinction being made between 'God' and the posited option, say 'the tooth fairy.' But it is not arbitrary for an obvious reason: as far as explanatory principles go, the idea of 'God' does a better job than the 'tooth fairy.' Why is this? Because God is said to be supremely powerful while the tooth fairy is not (from what we know about the tooth fairy anyway). Now you might reply in this fashion: you might say that we can simply arbitrarily add the quality 'supremely powerful' to the idea of the tooth fairy. Very good - but now we have a problem: either the competing option 'God' is more or less powerful than the tooth fairy (MkII). You may then say that, under your arbitrary model, the tooth fairy is more powerful. But then the tooth fairy (MkII) collapses into the idea of God - because God is precisely that being that is the most powerful.

So I do not believe this line of reasoning will work.

I am not, by the way, saying that the atheist must provide evidence disproving this explanatory option - that is plainly absurd. The burden of proof is not on the atheist here. My point is that science will not do ALL the work for the atheist. If you want to show that the very concept of God as an explanatory agent makes no sense, you will need to appeal to something other than science. Here I think logic will do the job - but not the logic just cited.

Why I bother replying in the face of such belittlement I'll never know. Masochism I guess.

I really can't follow what the hell he is talking about. I do get bits here and there, but it seems like a lot of dressed up gibberish to me. All I can interpret is that he seems to be saying is that science can't prove god doesn't exist therefore there must be some possibility, or that god is 'beyond' science. Which seems like a load of bullshit to me.

Any comments on formulating a reply?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Tell him it's not your job to prove that God doesn't exist, this is a direct reversal of the Burden of Proof called a Negative Proof Fallacy and to go fuck himself with a rusty iron spike, since there's no such thing as negative proof.

[bobalot]

The thing is I already pointed this out. Seems to have gone over the guys head.

[wautd]

Let him define what he means with all powerfull, then ask him like "can make a rock so heavy that he can't push it?"

[wautd]

Let him define what he means with all powerfull, then ask him like "can make a rock so heavy that he can't push it?"

That was regarding [2]

The negative proof part is just fucking stupid. Can he disprove there isn't an invisible flying hippo in front of his face?

[Rye]

I would answer with:

"Very well. I will address your stupid objection (since we are freely throwing around invective here).

The fact of science, with all its evidence, does not negate the "explanatory" (I use "explanatory" in quotes here because nothing is actually explained, merely, an ad hoc entity is invented without proof of causal relationships and realistic properties) possibility of a magical arse since this kind of arse could have initiated the causal process to begin with. Indeed, we can keep deferring a magical arse as a possible explanation as long as we like by simply placing him as an explanation for whatever cannot, as yet, be explained. The arse - as an explanatory agent - is very difficult to negate whatever the scientific data may say, because, well, it's a stupid argument that sensible people can see right through.

You say that we might as well posit, say, 'the tooth fairy' or 'a magic slug' or whatever instead of 'Arse.' This reductio argument sounds fine, but actually it is not as great as it seems. Why?

[1] Because I am being even more conservative than you are. I am not, here, talking about the Judeo-Christian magical ass (i.e. the one that spoke to Balaam), but a deist magical arse - i.e. that magical arse that has one quality only: the intentional power to initiate the genesis of the universe, much as you could replace with anything you wanted to "explain" by merely claiming a magical arse did it (again, please ignore the fact it doesn't actually explain anything, it just defines a magical being into existence that is immune to all previous reasoning).

The arse observes but does not, as it were, intervene. How does one observe the whole universe at all times without absorbing all photons in the universe and plunging us into eternal darkness? Why, magic, of course! The arse is stripped of all other qualities. So to say 'we might as well say it is the tooth fairy' is to say too much. I am talking here only of the possibility of an arse that has supreme power over the genesis of reality (or lightning, in the case of Zeus). This leads me to my second and main response.

[2] There is a second reason why I dislike this reductio. It is grounded in the belief that there is an arbitrary distinction being made between 'the arse' and the unfounded and yet posited option, say 'the tooth fairy.' But it is not arbitrary for an obvious reason: as far as explanatory principles go, the idea of a truly magical 'arse' does a better job than the 'tooth fairy.' Why is this? Because a magical arse is said to be supremely powerful while the tooth fairy is not (from what we know about the tooth fairy anyway). Now you might reply in this fashion: you might say that we can simply arbitrarily add the quality 'supremely powerful' to the idea of the tooth fairy. Very good - but now we have a problem: either the competing option 'magical arse' is more or less powerful than the tooth fairy (MkII). You may then say that, under your arbitrary model, the tooth fairy is more powerful. But then the tooth fairy (MkII) collapses into the idea of the magical arse - because the magical arse is precisely that being that is the most powerful.

So I do not believe this line of reasoning will work.

I am not, by the way, saying that the atheist must provide evidence disproving this explanatory option - that is plainly absurd. The burden of proof is not on the atheist here. My point is that science will not do ALL the work for the atheist. Apart from in the event that you apply occam's razor, one of the critical principles in formulating scientific theory. If you want to show that the very concept of a magical arse as an explanatory agent makes no sense, you will need to appeal to something other than science. Here I think logic will do the job - but not the logic just cited.

Why I bother replying in the face of such belittlement I'll never know. Masochism I guess."

[bobalot]

I have replied:

Hamster,

I have read through your waffle of a response.

You do not seem to understand that, it is not my job to prove to YOU that god does not exist.This is a direct reversal of the burden of proof, which is called the Negative Proof Fallacy. There is no such thing as a negative proof, which is what you seem to want me to do.

It is your job to prove to me that there can be a possibility of a god, deist or otherwise. This is called the 'burden of proof'.

Define what you mean by 'all powerful'

Now to get a response.

wautd, I already pointed out the retardedness of a negative proof.


This was my original reply:

Yes, but the point is that science cannot prove that 'God' does not exist.

Science doesn't have to prove that God does not exist.

The burden of proof is on the person who has made the fantastic claim to prove it.

If I made a claim that the universe was created by a giant sloth who gave out 6 commandments and a holy paragraph, someone would eventually ask me "But Bobalot, can you prove that the universe was created by a giant sloth?"

If I were to use your monumentally stupid line of reasoning, I would respond "Well,duh... You CAN'T PROVE MY GIANT SLOTH DOESN'T EXIST! SO HAHA!"

I would then demand my religion gets tax-free status and these commandments (and the holy paragraph) be put on government owned land. I would then cry "persecution" every time people pointed out the glaring inconsistencies in my religion.

I could even start the "Intelligent Sloth Theory of creation", which is that the gigantic sloth fell asleep and created a universe in a dream, and demand it be taught in schools as a "Scientific theory".

Admittedly, I was being a bit of a jackarse there.

[bobalot]

Sorry Zuul, Didn't see your post before I replied.

[Ted C]

This was my original reply:

Yes, but the point is that science cannot prove that 'God' does not exist.

Science doesn't have to prove that God does not exist.

The burden of proof is on the person who has made the fantastic claim to prove it.

If I made a claim that the universe was created by a giant sloth who gave out 6 commandments and a holy paragraph, someone would eventually ask me "But Bobalot, can you prove that the universe was created by a giant sloth?"

If I were to use your monumentally stupid line of reasoning, I would respond "Well,duh... You CAN'T PROVE MY GIANT SLOTH DOESN'T EXIST! SO HAHA!"

I would then demand my religion gets tax-free status and these commandments (and the holy paragraph) be put on government owned land. I would then cry "persecution" every time people pointed out the glaring inconsistencies in my religion.

I could even start the "Intelligent Sloth Theory of creation", which is that the gigantic sloth fell asleep and created a universe in a dream, and demand it be taught in schools as a "Scientific theory".

Admittedly, I was being a bit of a jackarse there.

I'm not seeing the jackassery. You're being a bit snarky, but you've actually been pretty damned polite by typical internet standards.

[Darth Wong]

God is not explanatory. An explanation allows one to understand how something was done. In no case does the idea of God allow anyone to understand anything. In fact, the machinations of God are explicitly defined as being beyond human comprehension. Even this person takes pains to say that God could be defined as anything we don't understand, which is exactly the opposite of an "explanatory" concept.

In other words, his argument fails right at the outset, by falsely calling God an "explanatory" concept. It is anything but.

[Ender]

God is just another label for "unknown", and science is about filling in the unknowns. Saying "God did it" in no way adds to the body of human knowledge, thus it is not an explanation.

[Ted C]

Going further, "God did it" isn't just a way of saying "I don't know", it really says "I don't know and I don't WANT to know", because it discourages further inquiry.

[lPeregrine]

An important thing to watch out for: don't let him get away with the pathetic bait and switch tactic he's trying. Here, he's arguing for a very limited deist god:

I am not, here, talking about the Judeo-Christian God, but a deist God - i.e. that being that has one quality only: the intentional power to initiate the genesis of the universe. He observes but does not, as it were, intervene. He is stripped of all other qualities.


But do you really think he actually believes in that god? Of course not. If/when you give any concession that he's found a "god" vague enough that you can't effectively reply to it, he'll substitute his christian god back in and assume that he proved that one as well. Don't let him get away with it. In fact, I would reject his entire line of reasoning here and demand that he provide support for his god and stop going off on pointless tangents.

[Rye]

It doesn't matter what god he's trying to argue for, they all suffer the same problems when it comes to (the absence of) explaining things and logical justification for belief.

[Feil]

Reduction ad absurdum:

1: Suppose that one can, by virtue of inability to posit a negative proof for some claim, conclude that that claim is correct.

2: The only way to disprove something is to prove some other claim in the positive which negates the possibility that the first claim is correct.

3: The existence negative proof is a thing which may be proved or disproved.

4: By 2, the negative proof for a negative proof is the positive proof of the initial claim.

5: Therefore, until a positive proof for the initial claim is obtained, if 1 is correct, we can conclude that the negative proof exists.

6: However, the same may be said for the negative proof of the negative proof, and for the negative proof of that negative proof, and so on, and so on.

7: Ergo the initial claim is both proved, disproved, proved, disproved, and so on ad infinitum.

8: 7 is absurd.

9: Ergo 1 is false.

[Feil]

Ghetto edit: Should be reductio ad absurdum.

[Superman]

Is it possible for a religionist of any sort to argue for the existence of a deity without appealing to ignorance? It seems like every argument for the existence of religion really just turns into that.

[Ted C]

Is it possible for a religionist of any sort to argue for the existence of a deity without appealing to ignorance? It seems like every argument for the existence of religion really just turns into that.

Just what other options do you think they have? It's not like they have any real evidence of supernatural intervention.

[TC Pilot]

It looks like he's trying to use a version of the new design argument to justify the belief in God. Not really sure though; he waffles between a semantic nitpicking of "the tooth fairy" and applying Ockham's Razor, wherein "God" is apparently simpler than "omnipotent universe creator tooth fairy," and obliquely alluding to some explanation of the origin of the universe.

[Darth Wong]

It looks like he's trying to use a version of the new design argument to justify the belief in God. Not really sure though; he waffles between a semantic nitpicking of "the tooth fairy" and applying Ockham's Razor, wherein "God" is apparently simpler than "omnipotent universe creator tooth fairy," and obliquely alluding to some explanation of the origin of the universe.

One of the worst things to ever happen to Occam's Razor was the popular misstatement where it is stated as "the simplest theory wins". People take the word "simplest" to refer to the number of words in the explanation, not the number of terms required in a predictive model.

[TC Pilot]

One of the worst things to ever happen to Occam's Razor was the popular misstatement where it is stated as "the simplest theory wins". People take the word "simplest" to refer to the number of words in the explanation, not the number of terms required in a predictive model.

I don't think he's saying God is preferable under Ockham's Razor because it's fewer words, it's that the tooth fairy isn't defined as a creature with omnipotence, meaning he would have to add an "extra term" of omnipotence to the tooth fairy. So he's not just misunderstanding Ockham's Razor, he's misunderstanding it in an even more stupid way, since God has just as many parts as "tooth fairy with omnipotence" (along with the whole nitpicking thing).

[Dave]

It looks like he's trying to use a version of the new design argument to justify the belief in God. Not really sure though; he waffles between a semantic nitpicking of "the tooth fairy" and applying Ockham's Razor, wherein "God" is apparently simpler than "omnipotent universe creator tooth fairy," and obliquely alluding to some explanation of the origin of the universe.

Ok, a little off topic, and maybe I'm just retarded, but I don't see how the "universe creator tooth fairy" is any simpler than "God." Isn't a universe creator kind of implausible too?

[General Zod]

Ok, a little off topic, and maybe I'm just retarded, but I don't see how the "universe creator tooth fairy" is any simpler than "God." Isn't a universe creator kind of implausible too?

That's the whole point. Ascribing any intelligent designer to a natural process is adding unnecessary terms to an explanation for something's cause.

[Darth Servo]

One of the worst things to ever happen to Occam's Razor was the popular misstatement where it is stated as "the simplest theory wins". People take the word "simplest" to refer to the number of words in the explanation, not the number of terms required in a predictive model.

That and using it at the beginning to declare simplest wins automatically regardless of predictive power or accuracy, rather than the last resort tie-breaker that its supposed to be.

[bobalot]

I have posted another reply. My first one hasn't placed at the end of the thread, so he may have missed it.

Thanks for the help, I have been blatantly stealing all your ideas here for my argument against his points.