viaro:

Is the climate an example of "non-information"?

No the data from which we get the current weather is the "non-information".

toba:

I disagree with u.Dr werner Gitt said we know absolutely for sure from science dat information cannot arise from disorder by chance.It always takes(greater) information and ultimately information is d result of intelligence

Dr Werner Gitt is a poor source of information on this topic. You can check the wikipedia entry about him. He is already biased and is a Young earth creationist. While he is a scientist, he may simply choose not to apply that to his long held beliefs.

And like I said with the aid of statistics, information can be derived from non-information (data)
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data#Meaning_of_data.2C_information_and_knowledge

Data on its own carries no meaning. In order for data to become information, it must be interpreted and take on a meaning.

This is information that we can and do work with.
You see one thing about science is that while there are notable scientists, there is no authority.

norri:

thehomer
In response to Post 174, no doubt science will keep pushing the boundaries. If everybody remains dogmatic to their religious books then the world would never progress. But as science doesn't have the answers to everything at present, religion and science can work together.

By work together I hope you don't mean suppress science or prevent science from criticizing religious dogma especially where it affects other people.

norri:

I aplogise if my views appear to be forced onto people, that is not my intention. I was just trying to offer an opposing view.

I wasn't referring to you in particular. Of course you can offer an opposing view. It's a free world and your right to speak and be heard should not be suppressed.

norri:

I cannot answer the question "what is the purpose of life?". To my knowledge nobody can, which is why many people are lead to believe in a God. 

And I'm saying not knowing enough about something now is not enough reason for me to believe or not believe in a God. For all we know, it may be unanswerable, or there may be no purpose or something else. It really doesn't bother me.

viaro:

4.  After I outlined how I intended to pursue this discourse, thehomer objected by indicating that it was one that should be detectable by "scientific means". No worries, my request was that he should tell me "what type of science" he thought could be used for such a metaphysical question, and then I would be glad to lead him in that same means to discover the supernatural  - but from that point (post #74), he never once ever obliged my request and seemed to only have kept cycling round it.

There are no "types of science" science has a clear method of approaching problems.

viaro:

5.  Where I lost it was when he (thehomer) boldly claimed falsely that I had "now introduced" the metaphysics into the whole thing  - like that was supposed to be my escape hatch. I thought at that point, we had had enough of the games, and that was why I was curt with him.

No no no. You said you wanted to use metaphysics I said fine.

You asked how and why science is more suited to metaphysical discussions. I'm saying it is not purely metaphysical. The examples I was giving were meant to indicate that the activities of your claimed metaphysical entities influence events here on earth. If they do so, science is the best way to detect their actions here. Their actions should keep violating what we already know.

viaro:

6.  As far as I know, questions about "all reality" and the nature of being and existence are philosophical questions of metaphysics. The reason why I kept repeating myself on that same point was to help thehomer (and any other interested atheist) show me otherwise. This is a fact that informed atheists cannot deny, and so many established sources still bear out this fact - that metaphysical questions are best treated on metaphysical premises. For this reason, I excerpted an atheist source (Austin Cline) attesting to this and showing clearly a recommendation, that: "in truth, metaphysics is probably the most fundamental subject which irreligious atheists should focus on". That was coming from an atheist - and I don't know why thehomer was not facing up to that fact. Of course, I was hoping he would show me otherwise - but that was where it seemed the discussion had stalled.

I'm of a different opinion.

viaro:

7.  It isn't that I was not willing to discuss at all - on the contrary, I was clear to repeatedly indicate that the question is purely a metaphysical one, and as such should be discussed on metaphysical premises. If my atheist discussant(s) agreed and were more inclined to "science", they should grant me just one request: please give me a specific outline of why "science" is more suitable for them, as well as how science answers metaphysical questions.

I chose to use science because I did not feel it was purely metaphysical the actions of these beings are supposed to affect humans here.

I see wikipedia is ur most reliable source of information. This is to show dat ur information being given here comes from information from wikipedia.

Anyway,do u know a code system is always d result of a mental process(it requires an intelligent origin or inventor).It should be emphasized dat matter as such is unable to generate any code.All experience indicate dat . Thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will cognition&creativity is required.

toba:

I see wikipedia is your most reliable source of information. This is to show dat your information being given here comes from information from wikipedia.

It's not my most reliable source of information. I wouldn't use it when it comes to specifics in my specialty. I like it because it is free and quite detailed on a wide range of topics. It also gets updated rapidly. I use it in these discussions for the other party to also check it out and follow the references if the person is so inclined.

toba:

Anyway,do u know a code system is always d result of a mental process(it requires an intelligent origin or inventor).It should be emphasized dat matter as such is unable to generate any code.All experience indicate dat . Thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will cognition&creativity is required.

What is a "code system"?

thehomer:

No the data from which we get the current weather is the "non-information".

Data is not an example of "non-information", nor is climate an example of "non-information". Depending on the type of area of application, it could be used to generate other types of information at higher levels; nonetheless, data is actually a type of information at its most basic form.

(a)  "The term data means groups of information that represent the qualitative or quantitative attributes of a variable or set of variables" (Wikipedia).

(b)  "Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, a single piece of information. In practice, however, people use data as both the singular and plural form of the word" (Webopedia).

(c)  1.  (plural: data) a single piece of information
      2.  (philosophy) (plural: data) a fact known from direct observation
      3.  (philosophy) (plural: data) a premise from which conclusions are drawn
      4.  (cartography)(engineering) (plural: datums) a fixed reference point
      ~   (Wikitionary)

thehomer:

Dr Werner Gitt is a poor source of information on this topic. You can check the wikipedia entry about him. He is already biased and is a Young earth creationist. While he is a scientist, he may simply choose not to apply that to his long held beliefs.

That is an example of the ad hominem fallacy in discourses. The fact that he is a creationist or someone made an entry on him anywhere does not take anything away from the substance of his discussion on information. The fact here is that your example of "non-information" is flawed, and it would have been rather helpful to see what is said rather than the person who said whatever. "Examine what is said, not him who speaks" (Arab proverb).

And like I said with the aid of statistics, information can be derived from non-information (data)
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data#Meaning_of_data.2C_information_and_knowledgeThis is information that we can and do work with.
You see one thing about science is that while there are notable scientists, there is no authority.

Data is not an example of "non-information", as outlined above.

thehomer:


There are no "types of science" science has a clear method of approaching problems.

There are indeed different types of science (please see this page and Wikipedia). You can also find an interesting list of many types of sciences at this page of the Phrontistery.

Further, there are different types "scientific methods" - it is not a case of 'one-size-fits-all'. I recommend this resource (under 'philosophy of science') for your consideration.

No no no. You said you wanted to use metaphysics I said fine.

I don't think you did, or you would not have said that I just "introduced" it after I had mentioned 'metaphysical discussions' long before that reply. The point was that you simply did not oblige me my requests, and beyond that point it did not seem you wanted me to take you seriously.

You asked how and why science is more suited to metaphysical discussions. I'm saying it is not purely metaphysical. The examples I was giving were meant to indicate that the activities of your claimed metaphysical entities influence events here on earth. If they do so, science is the best way to detect their actions here. Their actions should keep violating what we already know.

No, their actions should not "keep violating" what we already know - by that statement you demonstrate you did not have a proper understanding of the subject. Secondly, you argue that it is not a purely metaphysical one, and that was why I requested you to show me why and how. The source from an atheist did not indicate any different from what I stated about metaphysical questions; and I would have been glad if you discussed issues rather than merely saying this and that.

I'm of a different opinion.

That's okay with me, as long as you practically demonstrate the contrary.

I chose to use science because I did not feel it was purely metaphysical the actions of these beings are supposed to affect humans here.

I chose metaphysics because that is the premise on which metaphycal questions are discussed.

thehomer:


What is a "code system"?

Diverse definition,yet works sameway across diverse environment.Used for tabulation&statistical data.
For a good result of code system u need your data from very intelligent source&in dis context your so called 'non-information' wouldnt work cause well equiped data would guide u.For e.g to use a code system for census, your data must be concrete&complete or else your population figure will av error.Hence d datas required cant be called information from non-information.Cause data is part of information

@op u ought to give d definition of 'evidence' to guide us&u didnt give any evidence of Gods non existence either.
Pls do so intime cos your fellow atheist manmustwac spoke about 15 pages for dis thread.I can assure u,dat if we re to give unsectionalized evidence of Gods existence,dis thread might get to 100pages.loool

Na wa! This thread is something else. Let me subscribe lest the knowledge dissemination bypass me.

If I haven't learnt anything at all on this thread, I got this from viaro:

[size=13pt]"Examine what is said, not him who speaks" (Arab proverb)[/size]

Remarkable!

viaro:

Data is not an example of "non-information", nor is climate an example of "non-information". Depending on the type of area of application, it could be used to generate other types of information at higher levels; nonetheless, data is actually a type of information at its most basic form.

I already said climate was not "non-information".
Data (singular) is not information.
Here's an example to illustrate what I mean.
A man walks up to someone and says "3". That is data but not information. For it to become information, he could give more data "14159265". The other person may recognize this as pi.
Or the person may attach some more information. e.g "that is how old my daughter is." Then it becomes more meaningful.

viaro:

(a)  "The term data means groups of information that represent the qualitative or quantitative attributes of a variable or set of variables" (Wikipedia).

(b)  "Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, a single piece of information. In practice, however, people use data as both the singular and plural form of the word" (Webopedia).

(c)  1.  (plural: data) a single piece of information
      2.  (philosophy) (plural: data) a fact known from direct observation
      3.  (philosophy) (plural: data) a premise from which conclusions are drawn
      4.  (cartography)(engineering) (plural: datums) a fixed reference point
      ~   (Wikitionary)

The link I gave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data#Meaning_of_data.2C_information_and_knowledge already distinguished between data, information and knowledge.
From the above link

Data on its own carries no meaning. In order for data to become information, it must be interpreted and take on a meaning.

For data to be information, it needs to be grouped and/or processed.

viaro:

That is an example of the ad hominem fallacy in discourses. The fact that he is a creationist or someone made an entry on him anywhere does not take anything away from the substance of his discussion on information. The fact here is that your example of "non-information" is flawed, and it would have been rather helpful to see what is said rather than the person who said whatever.

The point I was making there is that he is already biased and his treatment of that topic and his conclusions had been refuted by other non-biased experts in the field. Plus his article was not published in a peer reviewed journal. This information was already presented on the same page. That's why I was referring the poster to the entry.

viaro:

"Examine what is said, not him who speaks" (Arab proverb).

When it comes to issues in science, it is also important to examine who speaks. Some people who make statements about scientific facts may actually not be qualified to do so.

viaro:

There are indeed different types of science (please see this page and Wikipedia). You can also find an interesting list of many types of sciences at this page of the Phrontistery.

I didn't mean the subgroups of scientific disciplines. I wasn't using "types" in that sense.

viaro:

Further, there are different types "scientific methods" - it is not a case of 'one-size-fits-all'. I recommend this resource (under 'philosophy of science') for your consideration.

From the page you referred me to. http://www.molwick.com/en/scientific-methods/024-reasoning.html#texto
[Quote]
The deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and hypothetic-deductive or hypothesis testing are the three scientific methods, which are referred to by the generic name of the scientific method.
[/quote]

I was using the generic name. It refers to them all.

viaro:

I don't think you did, or you would not have said that I just "introduced" it after I had mentioned 'metaphysical discussions' long before that reply. The point was that you simply did not oblige me my requests, and beyond that point it did not seem you wanted me to take you seriously.

From prior posts, you seemed open to another way of approaching the subject. But what you said before my post that you misquoted was that I was trying to apply the scientific method to what you on your own had just concluded was a metaphysical question. i.e you had already ruled out all other approaches and I had not agreed to ruling them out. The emphasis was on the phrase in bold not on "now".

thehomer:
You have now introduced more suitable in metaphysical discussions. And I've repeatedly given you the latitude to go metaphysical just provide your evidence.

viaro:

No, their actions should not "keep violating" what we already know - by that statement you demonstrate you did not have a proper understanding of the subject. Secondly, you argue that it is not a purely metaphysical one, and that was why I requested you to show me why and how. The source from an atheist did not indicate any different from what I stated about metaphysical questions; and I would have been glad if you discussed issues rather than merely saying this and that.

How does the statement demonstrate this? The topic is not just about whether a God exists but also about the evidence for it. Or are you saying this God does not have any effects on humans? Does not interfere in human activities?

viaro:

That's okay with me, as long as you practically demonstrate the contrary.

I did a few times with the examples of the amputee and the sickle cell disease patient. If the God effects a cure, it will be demonstrable scientifically. Or is there a way a cure could be effected without it being demonstrable by science?

viaro:

I chose metaphysics because that is the premise on which metaphycal questions are discussed.

You have assumed it is purely metaphysical. This I do not agree with.

toba:

Diverse definition,yet works sameway across diverse environment.Used for tabulation&statistical data.
For a good result of code system u need your data from very intelligent source&in dis context your so called 'non-information' wouldnt work cause well equiped data would guide u.For e.g to use a code system for census, your data must be concrete&complete or else your population figure will av error.Hence d datas required cant be called information from non-information.Cause data is part of information

I don't quite understand your definition of a code system.
"A code system has diverse definition,yet works sameway across diverse environment.
A code system is used for tabulation&statistical data."

What's the relevance to the evidence of a God?

thehomer:

I don't quite understand your definition of a code system.
"A code system has diverse definition,yet works sameway across diverse environment.
A code system is used for tabulation&statistical data."

What's the relevance to the evidence of a God?

u talked about information coming from non-information,which science says its impossible&used data as eg of non-information.Code system requires data to give information,i gave dat eg to show u dat datas supplied into a code system can never be regarded as non information.In a census,u gather datas of male in a local govt as 50.d data has informed u dat there are 50pple dat re males,when u further analyse u may break down into age group,education,marital status etc using code system to give full information,however d fact that data tells u there are 50pple its an information&a guide.Same applies to existence of God,dat God exists came from us being informed of his existence through data/any other means

@thehomer,try to check other sources apart from wikipedia on how data is part of information.Data is a part of knowledge which give u awareness/information.If u re to research on viaro's s.ex&i told u viaro is handsome.This is a data&d fact dat u know his handsome will aid u in determining his s.ex&personality.
The Nigerian information minister prof Dora said on Mon 1st March 'I CANT SPEAK ON MR PRESIDENT SINCE I HAVE NO INFORMATION EVEN AS THE MINISTER OF INFORMATION.Since we now know dat information cant come from non-information(something cant come from nothing) we must now discuss d various sources of information for Gods existence

thehomer:

I already said climate was not "non-information".
Data (singular) is not information.

There's actually no need to try to deny the fact that data (whether used as a singular or plural) is actually information at its most basic form. I didn't get that off the top of my head - it is incontrovertibly established that data is information.

Here's an example to illustrate what I mean.
A man walks up to someone and says "3". That is data but not information. For it to become information, he could give more data "14159265". The other person may recognize this as pi.
Or the person may attach some more information. e.g "that is how old my daughter is." Then it becomes more meaningful.

There's no difference between "3" and "14159265" - both are still information at its basic level and therefore data. The reference to the idea of attaching "more information" is simply including more data that tend to a pattern - it is that pattern or form that becomes information at a higher level. Any unit of input one provides is information at its basic level, and that is what is meant by data.

The link I gave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data#Meaning_of_data.2C_information_and_knowledge already distinguished between data, information and knowledge.
From the above linkFor data to be information, it needs to be grouped and/or processed.

Hang on, mate. Did you not realise that the link you provided was actually saying the very same thing I pointed out? Let me quote you an excerpt:

'The main difference is in the level of abstraction being considered.
Data is the lowest level of abstraction, information is the next level,
and finally, knowledge is the highest level among all three'

I very early noted that "data is actually a type of information at its most basic form", and that is nothing different from what that excerpt from your link says. The fact that the difference is simply a matter of the level of abstraction considered does not mean that it is only at the second level that we find "information" - no.

Information actually occurs at the basic level of 'data', and even the example used in that link is quite simply an allusion to data as a kind of information. That example says:

'the height of Mt. Everest is generally considered as "data", a book on Mt. Everest
geological characteristics may be considered as "information", and a report containing
practical information on the best way to reach Mt. Everest's peak may be considered
as "knowledge"'

Lol, what has happened is that the height of Mt. Everest is actually the most basic information that has been provided - it is not meaningless, otherwise the author would not have been able to identify it as "height". You do not refer to a "height" as meaningless, because it immediately identifies a particular character of Mt. Everest - and this is a clear example where even Wikipedia authors sometimes confuse issues for themselves and the public.

To even talk about "geological characteristics" is still data that is gathered at its most basic form because it is not processed. Actually, the author has confused between the next two levels: for when data has been processed (including height, geological characteristics, etc), then you arrive at a form or pattern which identifies the subject at a higher level of abstraction and distingusihes it from all other such subjects. For instance, how do we know it is a mountain and not rather a "hill", or a "boulder" or a "plateau"?? This second question is what the next level of abstraction ("information" answers.

It is when the basic level of abstraction ("data" is gathered and processed to the next level that yields "form" or "pattern" or "constraints" - and then these are further processed to the third level of abstraction that we arrive at "knowledge". At this level (which is "the highest level", the questions to be answered are those about the historical background and development of Mt. Everest.

I could go on and take up this issue in more practical examples; but the point is that data is still a form of information at the most basic level. The idea that data is "meaningless" is patently false - otherwise the example in your link would mean that "height" as an example of data is meaningless - then why is it called "height"? Data is a type of information.

viaro is pilgrim1!!! 
Welcome back!

@thehomer,

The point I was making there is that he is already biased and his treatment of that topic and his conclusions had been refuted by other non-biased experts in the field. Plus his article was not published in a peer reviewed journal. This information was already presented on the same page. That's why I was referring the poster to the entry.

The case still stands: what examples do you know of 'information' coming out of "non-information"? If the question is based on whether someone is biased or not, it is still an example of ad hominem fallacy as far as the subject itself is concerned.The merit or demerit of the subject itself does not stand or fall on whether someone is an atheist or theist.

However, let's not muddy the waters by appealing to such kinds of fallacies. Most of the critics of Dr. Werner Gitt still do not have any credible example of information arising from non-information all by itself. They may have criticised Werner on his arguements against evolution, based on a "standard misunderstanding that information is not entropy, information is not uncertainty". That is as far as they go in their criticisms; but none of his critics have been able to show where information emerged completely out of non-information on its own. It is not a question of "entropy" or "uncertainty" that we're talking here - and that is how many such critics muddy the waters and confuse the gullible public any which way. At this point, we still wait for an answer to the basic question here: 'what is your own example of information coming from non-information?'

When it comes to issues in science, it is also important to examine who speaks. Some people who make statements about scientific facts may actually not be qualified to do so.

No worries. I may agree with you there - as well as what you argued earlier, that: "one thing about science is that while there are notable scientists, there is no authority". Which, for me, would be saying that the "scientific facts" do not have to depend on whether someone was wearing a badge of authority or otherwise. Rain will still fall, sun will still shine - it matters nothing whether it be told by friends or fiends.

davidylan:

viaro is pilgrim1!!!
Welcome back!

Lol, where did you get this?

@thehomer,

thehomer:

I didn't mean the subgroups of scientific disciplines. I wasn't using "types" in that sense.

Okay; and even at that, science is not a matter of one-size-fits-all.

From the page you referred me to. http://www.molwick.com/en/scientific-methods/024-reasoning.html#texto
I was using the generic name. It refers to them all.

No, it does not refer to them all without particulars - that is why such things are distinguished.

From prior posts, you seemed open to another way of approaching the subject. But what you said before my post that you misquoted was that I was trying to apply the scientific method to what you on your own had just concluded was a metaphysical question. i.e you had already ruled out all other approaches and I had not agreed to ruling them out.

You got it all wrong there. Let me say it this way:

1. I did not conclude on my own that it should be a metaphysical question based on metaphysical premises. Rather, informed thinkers know that such is the case - and I particularly cited that atheist source that did not argue any different. And because it is such that we all know that metaphysical questions are more suitably discussed on metaphysical premises, there is no other way I would approach it that would have been meaningful and fruitful.

2.  I did not rule out every other approaches. Instead, I discussed why it is particularly a metaphysical question, and also why such metaphysical questions are to be discussed on metaphysical premises. Not only so, I also pointed out how such discussions would proceed - showing why even atheists cannot use just one particular philosophical assumption and call it "science" - at that point, I requested that since you wanted to use "science", please then outline how such a "science" is used to discussed metaphysical questions.

3.  The fact is that atheists who generally try to predicate these subjects on the wrong premise find themselves at a loss soon afterwards and then conclude that the discussion was empty and useless. Because I did not want it to go down that route, that was why I requested that you please explicate the types of science that could be used to discuss metaphysical subjects. I was looking forward to a dialogue and not a monologue where only one side would be making inputs and the other party would be having the fun of contributing nothing but just summarily dismissing the whole discussion.

The emphasis was on the phrase in bold not on "now".

Okay, in that case, I apologise to you for my reaction. You had surprised me there by inferring that I had "now introduced" the metaphysics, whereas I had very early stated and discussed it and then repeated it.

How does the statement demonstrate this? The topic is not just about whether a God exists but also about the evidence for it. Or are you saying this God does not have any effects on humans? Does not interfere in human activities?

My evidence for the existence of God does not have to follow a stereotype. The reasons why I broadened my subject were ~

[list](a) 'the existence of God' is what is known as a "universal" - therefore the question of evidence and proof by whatever means would involve "universals";

(b) the burden of proof in questions about "universals" applies both ways - both on the theist and atheist. The atheist cannot claim that he is not responsible to adduce 'proof' for his negative claim - because that would be something other than metaphysics. This was why I earlier talked about propositional logic.[/list]

On these particulars, I had tried to define and discuss my approach. I apologise if that is not to your flavour.

I did a few times with the examples of the amputee and the sickle cell disease patient. If the God effects a cure, it will be demonstrable scientifically. Or is there a way a cure could be effected without it being demonstrable by science?

Of course, but I have not witnessed every case of a miracle - which was why I did not want to go down the route of 'anecdotal evidence'. I have seen cases of other types of healings; and I could also point to the "science" of such - but here is what I need to ask you pointedly: what would you be thinking of as "testable by science"?

You have assumed it is purely metaphysical. This I do not agree with.

I did not assume. Please go and ask atheists who are informed and they will tell you no different.

davidylan:

viaro is pilgrim1!!! 
Welcome back!

I simply think d guy is awesome,be he pilgrim or viaro or 2in1 or twinity,d guy is still awesome&very very intelligent.

toba:

I simply think d guy is awesome,be he pilgrim or viaro or 2in1 or twinity,d guy is still awesome&very very intelligent.

Hahaha. . that word "twinity", haha!

I'm not awesome or intelligent, if you get to know me. Just a bit of a braggart who likes to sponge up knowledge from people from various sources. Perhaps nuclearboy saw that about me where I replied in this post.

^^^ . I can disagree with the second paragraph in the above post in at least 5 ways. Should I get started, viaro? 

Toba you got it locked down joo.

^^Hehehe. . what can I do to beg you? Seriously, you know I'm already on my knees!

^^^    Of course I don't have the fortitude to pursue such an argument with you, I was just teasing you.

Get up, viaro!  Haven't you heard that it is not respectable to beg?

`I love my love with an H,' Alice couldn't help beginning,' because he is Happy. I hate him with an H, because he is Hideous. I fed him with -- with -- with Ham-sandwiches and Hay. His name is Haigha, and he lives -- '

`He lives on the Hill,' the King remarked simply, without the least idea that he was joining in the game, while Alice was still hesitating for the name of a town beginning with H. `The other Messenger's called Hatta. I must have two, you know -- to come and go. One to come, and one to go.'

`I beg your pardon?' said Alice.

`It isn't respectable to beg,' said the King.

excerpt: Alice in wonderland

Hahaha. Mind me not. Random nonsense.

^^^ Viaro has a great head on his shoulders, and has brought much to the Religion Section in terms of Quality.

I admire his thoroughness.

By way of criticism, i will say that he is excessively stubborn: will not see a glaring or simple point once it is in contra-distiinction to his jewish-inspired dogma, can be rabidly bitter and ranks amongst the most terribly abusive and insultive persons on Nairaland.

Nonetheless he is a valuable asset to the Forum and has enriched the quality of discourse greatly.

_{Not to mention his monstrous vocabulary.}

Where does DSIGHT belong to? I know u biliv in Gods existence,but show more of ur identity man.U know atheists think u re a xtian

Quote from viaro -

The atheist cannot claim that he is not responsible to adduce 'proof' for his negative claim - because that would be something other than metaphysics. This was why I earlier talked about propositional logic.

No no no, son. Let's go back to Russell's Tea Pot -

I said this on another thread early in my arrival on NL -

Prizm - Don't wait up for it - while we bother our heads prsenting defensible cases for the positive existence of God, no atheist has ever, or will ever present a case for his positive non-existence.

This is because they know full well his non-existence can never be proven.

Nevertheless, they are somewhat justified in taking the position that it's not their task to advance proof, but ours.

In the words of the great Betrand Russell:


“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

I am sure you see from the above the lucid reason why it might not be apt to ask an atheist for reasons or proof.

We are the ones asserting the existence of a quantity that cannot be seen, and so the burden of proof, if any, falls with us.

Prizm disagreed with me  -

At any rate, it is not surprising that he likened the idea of a God to some teapot orbiting the sun. He imagines that a belief in God is similar to a belief that there could be some unknown teapot floating in orbit between Earth and Mars. Should we be agnostic about the existence of this teapot then? The answer is NO. The reason why we do not believe that Russell’s Celestial teapot exists is because we know that it wasn’t put there by either American or Russian astronauts!  Besides, matter in the vast expanse of this universe’s space-time does not spontaneously self-organize into teapot shapes – not to talk of delicate ceramic teapots or other remorseless pieces of china!

And i responded with -

However you lead me to believe that the core moral of the Russell quote was lost on you, and perhaps it is apt to have some perspective on the principle of burden of proof. In this perhaps i am somewhat tainted by my legal background as the term "burden of proof" has a distinct legal connotation.

In a sentence, the principle states - "He who asserts must prove".

However it is worth noting that this refers to a positive assertion as opposed to a negative assertion. In other words if i were to make the positive statement: "Michael Jackson is standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest" - the burden of proving that would rest on me, and not on the person who makes the negative assertion - "Michael Jackson is not standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest."

It is for this reason that in criminal trials, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who are making the positive statement - "He did it" and not with the defence who are making the negative statement - "He did not do it."

This is why i was somewhat bemused when you stated: "Besides, matter in the vast expanse of this universe’s space-time does not spontaneously self-organize into teapot shapes – not to talk of delicate ceramic teapots or other remorseless pieces of china" -

Because Mr. Russell's point has got nothing to do with that. His analogy simply is directed at showing up the flaw in insisting that the non-existence of something that has not been observed, or cannot be observed, must be proved by the skeptic. A grasp of the "absence of evidence" theorem will suggest that this is an absolute impossibility: and also an incongruity -  the atheists will never attempt to prove the non-existence of God, as such can never be done, nor does it make sense to ask them to come up with the evidence for a negative assertion.

It's quite simply a contradiction in terms.

Seven pages and nobody is yet to provide just one significant evidence to show that his or her imaginary god exists.

We have tangible EVIDENCE that Mount Everest exists:



This evidence can be tested, hell you can travel there and attempt to climb it if you are so inclined.

Lets look at the "evidence" of gods existence

•Poorly written books which various humans wrote about the various gods they want to sell to others and make them believe in, which are mostly unsupported by any evidence.
•Failed logical arguments for the existence of a theistic god which are full of holes and often self contradictory.
•Hundreds of different religions or denominations of the same religion which agree on very little.

@ Mazaje -

Mount Everest is a physical thing.

Answer me these questions -

When solid materials are heated up what do they become?

Is the answer that they melt and become liquid?

When Liquid is heated up, what does it become?

Is the answer that it becomes a gas?

Does this tell you anything about a progression of solids to non - solids?

Now look at the process in reverse.

Does this tell you anything about the emergence of solids from non-solids?

Thus the emergence of tangibles from intangibles?

^^

I don't have time for all this flawed reasoning. . . .How are you doing out there? Best wishes my guy. . . . .