The childishness of the negative proof

[focusonz]

I must be the oldest and wisest poster on the SDMB for me to see through the dilemma of all staunch theist/atheist thread posters.

I started this new thread because my point(s) seem to just get lost in all the noise in the religious debates. The thread “The end of religious discussion in GD” The end of religious discussion in GD - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board
prompts me to speak out clearly and thus the title.

Negative Proof refers to the fallacy of using an argument, about a phenomenon P, of the form:
1.P has not been observed
2.Therefore P does not exist
An argument of this form is most convincing when the existence of P seems implausible.
I have observed in the threads that proponents of either side of the argument digress to this fallacious argument.

On one hand the atheist says god has not been observed so therefore god does not exist.
While the theist say the absence of god has not been observed so therefore god exists everywhere.

Such is the conundrum. As examples of this digression we cite
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9725243&postcount=363
and
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9626892&postcount=4
or
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9584479&postcount=14

So why does the argument, among whom I consider to be very smart people, digress to the negative proof? And why is it that if one recognizes that the proofs are fallacious can their not be accommodation of the beliefs.

I maintain that it is because we are not in full control of our conscious minds. The question then is how do we gain control of our minds? We must exercise some control over ourselves otherwise like the media we will keep beating a dead horse.

In practically every post whether it be regarding religion, global warming, universal health care, one can detect an underpinning of a belief structure and an automatic response system in action.

Evidence of the automatic response system is evidenced in the posts regarding religion in the US at this thread. Questions for US dopers - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board

Evidence of an underpinning belief structure( not religious) at this thread

Need proof of Global Warming

where in earlier post Jshore and Intention battled and Jshore lost but still evidently believes in global warming http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9721256&postcount=195

Now maybe I am feeling a bit ignored or maybe my belief in myself is unjustified or maybe I am just no fun but their has been little acknowledgment from others that my contribution had value. See how these threads ended shortly after my posts

Passion is persuasive. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9718497&postcount=102
Holy Shit http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9676127&postcount=334
Summary No proof of global warming http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9720423&postcount=193

Now, I don’t care about what you think of me but I do care about the issues and the direction America should take. Call it patriotism, Call it caring for fellow man or what have you. The GD and PIT are all about persuasion (Fighting ignorance of the masses)

Should we petition the SDMB powers that be, to add a forum called “Questions, Asked and Answered” This thread invites a discussion on the merits of this idea. This mechanism might allow us to get some control over our conscience mind while permitting us to debate all issues till the cows come home. Also thinking about the future free SDMB this forum could be used as a way to challenge posters to strive for clarity of thought and poignancy.

Oh, by the way, When all realize that proof of god will always devolve to a fallacious argument spells the death knell for religious discussion in the GD. This post is my response to the “The end of religious discussion in GD” The end of religious discussion in GD - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board

[MrDibble]

If you think Jshore lost to intention, you weren’t reading the same thread I was.

As to the argument:
1.P has not been observed
2.Therefore P does not exist
That’s not usually how it goes down. What does go down is :

1. None of the evidence you’ve provided for P existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for P
2. therefore we have no reason to suppose P exists.
   which is a way different argument, actually, given the null hypothesis that P does not exist.

[Sitnam]

Thank you, MrDibble, exactly what I was going to say.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@focusonz

I must be the oldest and wisest poster on the SDMB for me to see through the dilemma of all staunch theist/atheist thread posters.

Objection! No foundation.

[focusonz]

@MrDibble

That’s not usually how it goes down. What does go down is :

1. None of the evidence you’ve provided for P existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for P
2. therefore we have no reason to suppose P exists.
   which is a way different argument, actually, given the null hypothesis that P does not exist.

Is the same argument, given the view on the other side.

1. None of the evidence you’ve provided for P **not **existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for not P
2. therefore we have no reason to suppose P does not exists.

Why let it go down at all? The debate (of gods existence) is a waste of great minds on both sides. The debate on how to accommodate both points of view and embrace the pluralism would be more fruitful.

[ASAKMOTSD]

@focusonz

The debate on how to accommodate both points of view and embrace the pluralism would be more fruitful.

Amen - or whatever.

[Der_Trihs]

What MrDibble said.

The problem is, taking the view that you won’t believe without evidence is the only way of reasoning productively. Taking the view that you’ll believe anything you want to believe unless disproof is found is simply an excuse for a trip to fantasyland, in almost all cases. Not many people REALLY follow the principle of "believe-unless-disproven, after all; they just follow it for specific beliefs they are fond of. It’s generally a dishonest argument, as well as a bad one.

@focusonz

Is the same argument, given the view on the other side.

1. None of the evidence you’ve provided for P **not **existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for not P
2. therefore we have no reason to suppose P does not exists.

We do. The lack of evidence is a reason. As I said, it’s the only way to reason usefully. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists.

@focusonz

The debate on how to accommodate both points of view and embrace the pluralism would be more fruitful.

It can’t be done. The denial of reason and reality are not compatible with reason and the acknowledgement of reality.

[Liberal]

@Der Trihs

The lack of evidence is a reason. As I said, it’s the only way to reason usefully.

I believe you mean to say “lack of evidence I will accept”. I have abundant evidence in the form of my experience, but you will accept none of it. I do understand why you don’t accept it; after all, you haven’t lived my life. But there is a world of difference between “you have offered no evidence” and “you have offered no evidence that satisfies me”. The former is false.

The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists.

Actually, the burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim of any kind, whether it’s that something exists or that something does not.

[The_Hamster_King]

@focusonz

Is the same argument, given the view on the other side.

1. None of the evidence you’ve provided for P **not **existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for not P
2. therefore we have no reason to suppose P does not exists.

Then one must metaphysically accomodate ALL possible entities: invisible pink unicorns, Santa Clauses, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Quetzlcoatls, etc.

If he is intellectually honest a theist using this argument MUST extend it to ALL possible beings, not merely his own god or gods. For example, he must also be prepared to defend the possible existence of fairies and poltergeists and little green men. Is that really a position most theists are willing to take?

By contrast I think most atheists are willing to concede that we cannot PROVE that God doesn’t exist. So what? We can’t PROVE the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist either. However, if we have no evidence for either, then Occam’s Razor allows us atheists to ignore both when we contruct our models of how the universe functions.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Liberal

I have abundant evidence in the form of my experience, but you will accept none of it.

I know in my heart of hearts that there is no God. Why isn’t that good enough for you?

[Der_Trihs]

@Liberal

I believe you mean to say “lack of evidence I will accept”. I have abundant evidence in the form of my experience, but you will accept none of it.

Because it’s not evidence. If someone thinks they can fly by flapping their arms, it that evidence that they can do so ?

If I were to follow your definition of evidence, I’d have to accept as evidence every claim made by every lunatic or fool or liar who’s ever lived.

@Liberal

Actually, the burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim of any kind, whether it’s that something exists or that something does not.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on the claim of existence; nonexistence is the logical default. Otherwise, as Pochacco says, you can’t claim that anything logically possible is nonexistent. That’s what I meant when I said that disbelief-until-evidence is the only way to reason productively.

[MrDibble]

@focusonz

Is the same argument, given the view on the other side.

1. None of the evidence you’ve provided for P **not **existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for not P
2. therefore we have no reason to suppose P does not exists.

No, the debate still has the same null hypothesis. So we don’t have to worry about 1) being true, as you can’t get to 2) from there.

@focusonz

Why let it go down at all? The debate (of gods existence) is a waste of great minds on both sides. The debate on how to accommodate both points of view and embrace the pluralism would be more fruitful.

More fruitful how? If our concern is the truth, then this is not a satisfactory resolution. And despite what some may say, there is certainly a truth to be arrived at.

[Liberal]

@Der Trihs

Because it’s not evidence. If someone thinks they can fly by flapping their arms, it that evidence that they can do so ?

I don’t think I can fly. I think I have a relationship with God. I also think I dreamed about where I used to work last night. How do I prove that to you?

If I were to follow your definition of evidence, I’d have to accept as evidence every claim made by every lunatic or fool or liar who’s ever lived.

Why so? You believe what people say all the time which you have no understanding of yourself, unless you have hundreds of post-graduate degrees. If you can’t tell the lunatics and liars apart from the rest, then you’re running your whole life on blind faith.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on the claim of existence; nonexistence is the logical default. Otherwise, as Pochacco says, you can’t claim that anything logically possible is nonexistent. That’s what I meant when I said that disbelief-until-evidence is the only way to reason productively.

Then prove — to my satisfaction — that you exist.

[Hampshire]

1. None of the evidence you’ve provided for P existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for P
2. therefore we have no reason to suppose P exists.

1) None of the evidence you've provided for P not existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for not P
2) therefore we have no reason to suppose P does not exists.

I think both conclusions are flawed as both are beliefs and not facts. Both are hypotheses, neither are law.
What is wrong with saying “I don’t know, you don’t know, we don’t know.”

It’s about as logical as an arguement about whether the contestant on Deal or No Deal picked the million dollar case.
Theist- I believe I have the million dollar case.
Atheist- You have done nothing to show or prove you have it, therefore you don’t have it.
Agnostic- I don’t know, you don’t know, we don’t know.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Liberal

Then prove — to my satisfaction — that you exist.

He can’t of course. Just as it’s impossible to prove that the sun rises in the morning. Proof is a property of formal systems, not of the real world.

All any of us has is the evidence of our senses. The best we can do is construct internal models that are consistent with that evidence. We can’t PROVE any one particular model is correct. There may be a number of models that all match the evidence.

However, when picking among competing models, it’s best to avoid ones that contain unnecessary entities. For example, my understanding of how the universe operates is not helped by including invisible pink unicorns in my model … even though a model that contains invisible pink unicorns can still be perfectly consistent with the evidence at hand.

Without evidence, gods are unnecessary entities. They add nothing to the model. So, like invisible pink unicorns, they are best left out.

[focusonz]

@Pochacco

By contrast I think most atheists are willing to concede that we cannot PROVE that God doesn’t exist.

So therefore, you are not an atheist but and you are an agnostic.

@Pochacco

So what? We can’t PROVE the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist either. However, if we have no evidence for either, then Occam’s Razor allows us atheists to ignore both when we construct our models of how the universe functions.

Occam’s Razor only applies if there are a finite number of experiments which can ever be performed. There is no experiment which proves existence of god or easter bunnies so you have to hang it out their and believe (accept as fact without proof) what ever you want.

[Eben]

@Hampshire

I think both conclusions are flawed as both are beliefs and not facts. Both are hypotheses, neither are law.
What is wrong with saying “I don’t know, you don’t know, we don’t know.”

It’s about as logical as an arguement about whether the contestant on Deal or No Deal picked the million dollar case.
Theist- I believe I have the million dollar case.
Atheist- You have done nothing to show or prove you have it, therefore you don’t have it.
Agnostic- I don’t know, you don’t know, we don’t know.

I think you’ve pretty much nailed it here. The problem really is the follow-up arguments about why the belief in God (or whatever) should be protected by not paying taxes, having special access to resources, whatever.

Atheists really wish they could disprove God so that they don’t have to make special consideration for nut cases (in their opinion).

Theists really wish they could prove God so that everyone would understand why they (the theists) really do deserve special consideration.

As long as there is something at stake, people will cling to whatever shred of argument gives them hope, even if, as the OP points out, it’s childish to do so.

[Der_Trihs]

@Liberal

I don’t think I can fly. I think I have a relationship with God. I also think I dreamed about where I used to work last night. How do I prove that to you?

By the fact that I and other people have had dreams and have beliefs as well. Since there’s plenty of evidence for both people holding beliefs and for dreams, it’s not a matter of evidence, but of whether or not I trust your word about something subjective. When you start talking about a relationship with God, you are talking about something that is NOT subjective, and for which there is no evidence. And what something that the evidence that exists, contradicts; both the disagreements among believers and the general claim that God violates physical laws are evidence against God.

And claims of personal experiences are extra worthless here in Great Debates, since we aren’t allowed to call it a lie. A claim that people aren’t allowed to contradict isn’t worth anything.

@Liberal

Why so? You believe what people say all the time which you have no understanding of yourself, unless you have hundreds of post-graduate degrees. If you can’t tell the lunatics and liars apart from the rest, then you’re running your whole life on blind faith.

:rolleyes: I trust people and groups according to their track record of accuracy. Which is why I trust science to either be right, or to correct it’s mistakes; and why I trust religion to be wrong, and to cling to it’s mistakes.

@Liberal

Then prove — to my satisfaction — that you exist.

Simple; I’m talking to you. And - unlike claims about personal experiences of God - everyone can see that I’m talking to you.

[Eben]

@Pochacco

Without evidence, gods are unnecessary entities. They add nothing to the model. So, like invisible pink unicorns, they are best left out.

Except that gods do add something to the model. The real problem is when the unnecessary entities start demanding certain sacrifices/behaviors or they’ll change the model, then things get silly.

[CurtC]

@focusonz

So therefore, you are not an atheist but and you are an agnostic.

If that’s your definition of the word “agnostic,” then everyone on Earth is an agnostic. That’s not a very useful word if it applies equally to everybody.