Walper sidetracks main topic.

[Comrade Tortoise]

It is only a burden of proof fallacy if someone says "well there is nothing to prove that it doesnt exist so it does" I am saying that "nothing proves that it doesnt, so the question is unknowable)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the burden of proof is a two way street. And while the lack of evidence precludes a need to include a deity in models and assuming non-existence is a safe assumption, it does not turn the non-existence of a deity into an indesputable fact.

[Robert Walper]

Non-existence of god is as much fact as Vader not existing is. Appeals to Ignorance don't work, and neither does twisting the definition of 'fact' as "anything less than 100% known".

Nor can you dismiss the Vader example as "admitted fiction by the creator", since one can continue to counter every argument you make towards that end with refined ways of reaching untestable means.

For example: "The Emperor used the Force to influence George Lucas to mimick the Star Wars universe onto film". Since that cannot be tested or verified, your logic points out we can no longer rule out the possibility of Vader existing.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Non-existence of god is as much fact as Vader not existing is. Appeals to Ignorance don't work, and neither does twisting the definition of 'fact' as "anything less than 100% known".

Bullshit. Believe it or not, you are the one emplying an appeal to ignorance. One form of which is

There is no evidence for P
Therefore not P

I am using the form
There is no evidence for or against P
therfore, we cannot know the answer to P

WHich is not a form of an appeal to ignorance fallacy

Not only that, you are employing circular logic, because you are operating on the premise that god does not exist by defining it as such, then arguing from that premise to support your conclusion that god does not exist.

As for Darth Vader, you are poisoning the well by using an example of something which we do, in fact, know to be false.
What you are doing is making a massive leap in logicl All the burden of proof means is that a person making a positive claim is burdened to prove his case. It means that there is no need to presume their correctness, or include their postulate in models. It does not mean that it becomes indesputable fact that they are wrong.

For an example, Michael jackson was guilty of pedophilia. But the prosecutor failed to prove it.

[Comrade Tortoise]

And remember folks, this applies to MULTIPLE gods. As in ALL of them. We cannot know the answer to the question "does a god, or gods exist" we can however know the answer to whether or not a specific one exists.

[Cynical Cat]

Not exactly being completely honest there, Comrade Tortoise. We have no more evidence of there being gods than we do of there being invisible, intangible pink elephants. To assert that a god or gods exists requires some support or we can discard them as being as unnecessary. The existence of unverifiable gods is meaningless.

[The Cleric]

As for Darth Vader, you are poisoning the well by using an example of something which we do, in fact, know to be false.

BULLSHIT! We DO NOT know that to be false by your criteria. Under your warped logic, Vader MUST be treated exactly the same as a god.

[Comrade Tortoise]

As for Darth Vader, you are poisoning the well by using an example of something which we do, in fact, know to be false.

BULLSHIT! We DO NOT know that to be false by your criteria. Under your warped logic, Vader MUST be treated exactly the same as a god.

No. He is an addmitedly fictional character. Not equivalent to say, an unspecified watchmaker deity as per deist beliefs. He can potentially be tested etc etc etc. They arent in the same category.

I am not the one employing circular logic, appeals to ignorance (using the proper definition of the fallacy, not Walper's warped version he accuses me of) and twisting the burden of proof to say things it does not actually say.

And just for the record, I do not believe in god or gods, just to avoid people getting confused.

[The Cleric]

As for Darth Vader, you are poisoning the well by using an example of something which we do, in fact, know to be false.

BULLSHIT! We DO NOT know that to be false by your criteria. Under your warped logic, Vader MUST be treated exactly the same as a god.

No. He is an addmitedly fictional character. Not equivalent to say, an unspecified watchmaker deity as per deist beliefs. He can potentially be tested etc etc etc. They arent in the same category.

Nope. You are wrong. Vader is no more fictional than god.

[Comrade Tortoise]

You can claim I am wrong all you want, that is your belief. However it is not a logically valid one. Neither is saying god exists. It is like a court, yet again, I use this analogy and it will be ignored.

Just because the prosecutor does not have the evidence to get something past the grand jury does not mean that the suspect is innocent. Nor does it mean they are guilty.

You people are misconstruing the burden of proof to mean that something that is unproven is automatically wrong. All it means is that something unproven does not need to be accounted for, or assumed to exist. You make a leap in logic when you assume the former.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Not exactly being completely honest there, Comrade Tortoise. We have no more evidence of there being gods than we do of there being invisible, intangible pink elephants. To assert that a god or gods exists requires some support or we can discard them as being as unnecessary. The existence of unverifiable gods is meaningless.

Being meaningless is different than not existing.

I am not arguing that they DO exist. I am arguing that it is not logically valid to conclude that they cannot or definently do not. Specific gods can be evaluated in this manner. But a non-interactive watchmaker deity or the like, while "meaningless" cannot, on the same note, be proven not to exist.

SHit, if we want to see an example of meaningless things that exist, all we have to do is look at the united nations

[Rogue 9]

Not exactly being completely honest there, Comrade Tortoise. We have no more evidence of there being gods than we do of there being invisible, intangible pink elephants. To assert that a god or gods exists requires some support or we can discard them as being as unnecessary. The existence of unverifiable gods is meaningless.

That's why any Christian or other theist in their right minds will not make the assertion of the existence of God or gods as a statement of fact. It's an article of faith, which is something else entirely.

Since a positive assertion in the logical sense is not being made, there's nothing to disprove. If you attempt to prove that God does not exist, then frankly you're out to prove a negative.

[Robert Walper]

You just don't seem to get it, Tortoise. By your logic, submitting anything that as "untestable" means it is therefore 'possible'. Vader falls into this catagory, so does god and many, many other things. Therefore, anything untestable is 'possible' by your defintion. Which means I can literally spend time throwing out utterly bullshit ideas left and right, but so long as they are untestable they deserve credibility as 'possible'.

Again, I assert "god does not exist" as a fact, with the full knowledge that facts do not constitute "100% indisputeable".

[Comrade Tortoise]

You just don't seem to get it, Tortoise. By your logic, submitting anything that as "untestable" means it is therefore 'possible'. Vader falls into this catagory, so does god and many, many other things. Therefore, anything untestable is 'possible' by your defintion. Which means I can literally spend time throwing out utterly bullshit ideas left and right, but so long as they are untestable they deserve credibility as 'possible'.

Again, I assert "god does not exist" as a fact, with the full knowledge that facts do not constitute "100% indisputeable".

Do you ignore half of what I say? Something that cannot be proven becomes scientifically and intellectually meaningless. It means that it is safe to not assume it exists, and that there is no need to presuppose it in models. It does not however mean that it does not exist. There is a massive difference and you make a logical leap in doing the latter and asserting it as a postive claim.

And how many times do I have to tell you, deities and darth vader are not in the same class, the comparison is invalid. Do I have to call you on that false analogy another 1.5x10^47 times before it will sink in? Hell, her it goes, I will just rip it apart anyway. Positing darth vader exists brings up several testable predictions, even if we assume that the emperor tampers with George Lucas
1: In order to be affected by the force, George Lucas has to have midichlorians. And because they are symbiotic organisms can easily be tested for.

2: In order for the force to propagate it must have a mode of transmittance in the form of an energy field. Energy fields such as gravity etc are propgated through particles. Particles which using an atom smasher we an detect.

I can go on.

Oh, and you are still using an appeal to ignorance

[The Cleric]

Do you ignore half of what I say? Something that cannot be proven becomes scientifically and intellectually meaningless. It means that it is safe to not assume it exists, and that there is no need to presuppose it in models. It does not however mean that it does not exist. There is a massive difference and you make a logical leap in doing the latter and asserting it as a postive claim.

So what's the difference between god and the GFSM?

And how many times do I have to tell you, deities and darth vader are not in the same class, the comparison is invalid. Do I have to call you on that false analogy another 1.5x10^47 times before it will sink in? Hell, her it goes, I will just rip it apart anyway. Positing darth vader exists brings up several testable predictions, even if we assume that the emperor tampers with George Lucas

Sure. This outa be good.

1: In order to be affected by the force, George Lucas has to have midichlorians. And because they are symbiotic organisms can easily be tested for.

Darth Vader uses the force on all the scientists to make them forget that they saw midichlorians.

2: In order for the force to propagate it must have a mode of transmittance in the form of an energy field. Energy fields such as gravity etc are propgated through particles. Particles which using an atom smasher we an detect.

You mean they've found gravity particles?! Please, show me!

I can go on.

Please do. That was fun, and rather easy.

Oh, and you are still using an appeal to ignorance

Which one? I didn't see any.

[Robert Walper]

You just don't seem to get it, Tortoise. By your logic, submitting anything that as "untestable" means it is therefore 'possible'. Vader falls into this catagory, so does god and many, many other things. Therefore, anything untestable is 'possible' by your defintion. Which means I can literally spend time throwing out utterly bullshit ideas left and right, but so long as they are untestable they deserve credibility as 'possible'.

Again, I assert "god does not exist" as a fact, with the full knowledge that facts do not constitute "100% indisputeable".

Do you ignore half of what I say? Something that cannot be proven becomes scientifically and intellectually meaningless. It means that it is safe to not assume it exists, and that there is no need to presuppose it in models. It does not however mean that it does not exist. There is a massive difference and you make a logical leap in doing the latter and asserting it as a postive claim.

And how many times do I have to tell you, deities and darth vader are not in the same class, the comparison is invalid. Do I have to call you on that false analogy another 1.5x10^47 times before it will sink in? Hell, her it goes, I will just rip it apart anyway. Positing darth vader exists brings up several testable predictions, even if we assume that the emperor tampers with George Lucas

Your first mistake. I never asserted Darth Vader exists. In fact, I assert he doesn't exist as a fact. However, with your line of reasoning, we must admit the existence of Darth Vader is a possibility, because it is exceptionally easy to reduce an arguement to untestable proportions.

1: In order to be affected by the force, George Lucas has to have midichlorians. And because they are symbiotic organisms can easily be tested for.

Ah, so rocks have midiclorians then? I suggest you become more familiar with Star Wars before "refuting" example arguements. Midiclorians are an indication of Force potential in a Force user, not dictation of what is affected by it. Nothing needs midiclorians to be affected by the Force, unless you assert everything from droids, ships and rocks must have them.

2: In order for the force to propagate it must have a mode of transmittance in the form of an energy field. Energy fields such as gravity etc are propgated through particles. Particles which using an atom smasher we an detect.

Ah, so scientists know how to detect Force usage, and the means by which it propagates it's effects? Feel free to link me to that information.

I can go on.

Sorry, you failed "disproving Vader". And you will continue to do so, because I can easily refine the arguement repeatedly until it's untestable. After which, according to your logic, we must make a turn around and now accept that the existence of Darth Vader is a possibility.

But regardless of the ability to propose the existence of Darth Vader via the "untestable" nature, we still know it's a fact he does not exist. And so is the case with 'god', even though you continue to insist it cannot be fact because "nothing is known with 100% certainty". In which case, there is no such thing as a fact, because nothng is known to that degree.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Your first mistake. I never asserted Darth Vader exists. In fact, I assert he doesn't exist as a fact. However, with your line of reasoning, we must admit the existence of Darth Vader is a possibility, because it is exceptionally easy to reduce an arguement to untestable proportions.

Nice strawman, because I never said that you asserted vader exists now did I? I said that by positing he exists, several predictions can be made. Nice try distorting my argument and setting your own strawman on fire. Didnt work, try again.

YOu misrepresent the idea of burden of proof, that is the point. But of course, you ignore that and continue poisoning the well and using a false analogy which I have called you on several times now. Please, if you think the comparison is so valid, show how vader and a deity are in the same class by which you can compare them. One is a corporeal beingwhich we can potentially search for directly, or detect by fairly accurate indirect means and inferences. Such as detecting if Luke beamed the knowledge of the star wars galaxy into George Lucas's mind, by (in theiry) detecting the physical tranciever required for direct interaction between the force and the organism, or by detecting a tangible measurable energy field. A Deity has no such means of being tested. So, while intellectually worthless, can still exist. Remember what I said about worthless things like the UN, and France, existing despite being worthless?

You are still employing an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Ah, so rocks have midiclorians then? I suggest you become more familiar with Star Wars before "refuting" example arguements. Midiclorians are an indication of Force potential in a Force user, not dictation of what is affected by it. Nothing needs midiclorians to be affected by the Force, unless you assert everything from droids, ships and rocks must have them.

WOuld it be fair to say that Qui Gon is a knowledgeable authority on the nature of Midichlorians? because according to him, and this is canon, without midichlorians, life could not exist, and tell us the will of the force. This means that they would have to act as a sort of force-tranciever. So yes, organic and inorganic material have midichlorians to greater and lesser extents. The Vong are force blind, so are their ships and building materials. There must be a physical difference between their form of life, and ours. Something detectable. So in theory, either way, we can detect this physical difference.

Ah, so scientists know how to detect Force usage, and the means by which it propagates it's effects? Feel free to link me to that information.

Obi-Wan said it is an energy field. Therefore it is detectable either now, or in the futue with the right technology. When talking about potential falsification, all we need to do is possit a method by which the entity or otehrwise may be falsified. It doesnt mean we must be able to carry it out with the current technology level.

Sorry, you failed "disproving Vader". And you will continue to do so, because I can easily refine the arguement repeatedly until it's untestable. After which, according to your logic, we must make a turn around and now accept that the existence of Darth Vader is a possibility.

Just try. Testing for a physical entity is easy. You look. If we assume we can reach the technologicla level required to physically look for darth vader, we can search the entire universe, and eventually, find him, or things that lead us to believe he once existed in physical form.

But regardless of the ability to propose the existence of Darth Vader via the "untestable" nature, we still know it's a fact he does not exist. And so is the case with 'god', even though you continue to insist it cannot be fact because "nothing is known with 100% certainty". In which case, there is no such thing as a fact, because nothng is known to that degree.

If you keep emplying the appeal to ignorance like this, I am going to have to ask that you be disciplies in some manner.

DO I have to beat this into your fracking skull

There is no evidence for or against P
Therefore not P

Is an appeal to ignorance, it is fallicous reasoning. Stop using it. The proper answer is


There is no evidence for or against P
Therefore, I do not know the answer to P

It is not that hard.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Darth Vader uses the force on all the scientists to make them forget that they saw midichlorians.

Darth vader is not that powerful Hell, even the emperor is not that powerful

[The Cleric]

Darth Vader uses the force on all the scientists to make them forget that they saw midichlorians.

Darth vader is not that powerful Hell, even the emperor is not that powerful

Yeah. That's what he wants you to think.

[The Cleric]

There is no evidence for or against P
Therefore not P

Is an appeal to ignorance, it is fallicous reasoning. Stop using it. The proper answer is


There is no evidence for or against P
Therefore, I do not know the answer to P

It is not that hard.

Therefore we cannot know anything, and science is worthless.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Darth Vader uses the force on all the scientists to make them forget that they saw midichlorians.

Darth vader is not that powerful Hell, even the emperor is not that powerful

Yeah. That's what he wants you to think.

Scientists have a tendency to not be weak minded individuals. The jedi mind trick wont work on them, plain and simple.

Therefore we cannot know anything, and science is worthless.

What do you think testing and falsification are? Chopped liver? Testing is what we use to find evidence for and against things. Thus allowing us to know the answer to P. If no test is available we cannot know the answer to P. Claiming to do so is an appeal to ignorance.

to falsify any given deity, all that is needed is one testable prediction to turn out with negative results. Sor example, mormonism was recently tested using genetics (their belief that native americans are related to jews was tested and didnt pan out) and falsified. However, the notion of a non-interactive creator deity cannot be tested scientifically, thus the answer cannot be known

[The Cleric]

Darth vader is not that powerful Hell, even the emperor is not that powerful

Yeah. That's what he wants you to think.

Scientists have a tendency to not be weak minded individuals. The jedi mind trick wont work on them, plain and simple.

You don't know that. Vader hides his true power, to make you think he can't do that.

Therefore we cannot know anything, and science is worthless.

What do you think testing and falsification are? Chopped liver? Testing is what we use to find evidence for and against things. Thus allowing us to know the answer to P. If no test is available we cannot know the answer to P. Claiming to do so is an appeal to ignorance.

to falsify any given deity, all that is needed is one testable prediction to turn out with negative results. Sor example, mormonism was recently tested using genetics (their belief that native americans are related to jews was tested and didnt pan out) and falsified. However, the notion of a non-interactive creator deity cannot be tested scientifically, thus the answer cannot be known

And if it's non-interactive, non-testable, non-anything, you can safely assume that it DOES NOT EXIST.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Even if I grant you that Darth vader is untestable and thus worthless. That worthlessness does not mean that he does not exist
it is called an assumption for a reason. It does not mean that the entiy does not in fact exist, because reality exists independantly of your assumptions. It means that the entity is worthless enough if it exists to be irrelevant.

[SirNitram]

Therefore we cannot know anything, and science is worthless.

Strawman distortion. Science cannot know anything 100%; it can know what fits all the facts, however. And what matches all observations and is testable, reproducable, and explains things is enough to make tools and advances.

Of course, philosophy majors and other detritus of society don't think that's enough, but that doesn't matter.

As for unfalsifiable: There's a reason why even a Church-paid man realized Parsimony was important, folks.

[The Cleric]

Therefore we cannot know anything, and science is worthless.

Strawman distortion. Science cannot know anything 100%; it can know what fits all the facts, however. And what matches all observations and is testable, reproducable, and explains things is enough to make tools and advances.

I know. I was purposely slippery sloping it all the way, just to demonstrate what that line oh philosophical thinking does to a rational person.

[Dark Silver]

Gentlemen, this topic has become counter productive and circular. As such, since both our Forum Moderator and the Admin who was looking through this has been otherwise engauged in it earlier, I take it upon myself to do the following:



thread locked