Imposing their views

[Gordon]

No, the NPF is you cannot prove something so it must be true. I'm not saying that.

You said about Jeremy that "He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real." - which reads to me like you're using the NPF.

What do you think the qualification is for being objectively real?

Where there is information that results in an intersubjective agreement that there is 'x', and where that conclusion is provisional and subject to review. While it may be the case that some things appear to be more 'objectively real' than others one should, as Betrand Russell advised, never be absolutely certain of anything.

NHMB.

WTF?

[ProfessorDavey]

The point is the decision to define realty has been taken by people who believe in that definition of reality without demonstrating it using their belief.

How on earth do you know that Vlad - oh, wait, you don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said about Jeremy that "He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real." - which reads to me like you're using the NPF.

Where there is information that results in an intersubjective agreement that there is 'x', and where that conclusion is provisional and subject to review. While it may be the case that some things appear to be more 'objectively real' than others one should, as Betrand Russell advised, never be absolutely certain of anything.


WTF?

No, to NPF you have to positively assert that absence of proof against equals proof of.

Nobody as far as I can see has ever done that on this forum.

You have been confused by your own hope.

[Gordon]

No, to NPF you have to positively assert that absence of proof against equals proof of.

Which is  what you were implying are when you, who believes that 'God' is objectively real, issued a challenge to Jeremy saying that "He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real".

Case closed.

[ProfessorDavey]

NPF

What is NPF?

[Gordon]

What is NPF?

Negative proof fallacy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Negative proof fallacy.

Thanks.

Not sure where this gets us. I think we all recognise that you cannot prove that something does not exist - but being unable to prove that something does exist provides no support that something does actually exist.

And there are literally countless things that we might consider that could exist where there is no proof that they don't exist - from tartan swans, to invisible flying teapots, to the god Humdinger who lives on the planet Zarg - or indeed the planet Zarg itself.

But while no-one claims that tartan swans, invisible flying teapots or the god Humdinger who lives on the planet Zarg actually exist the argument is completely sterile and there is no onus on anyone to provide proof of existence, nor (obviously impossible) non-existence. However as soon as someone actually claims that something exists then the situation changes entirely, based on the burden of proof. At this point there is a complete shift - the burden of proof now rests entirely on the person making the claim that something actually exists - there remains, of course, no onus on anyone to prove that this thing does not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is  what you were implying are when you, who believes that 'God' is objectively real, issued a challenge to Jeremy saying that "He cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real".

Case closed.

Not at all.

He cannot demonstrate that, or is not nor never has been able to. That is a fact. But it is nowhere near committing an NPF.
There are two forms of the NPF. a) Absence of evidence is evidence of existence that's the one I think you are accusing me of.
(For me, there is no absence of evidence but I also rightly believe that that evidence does not constitute universally accepted evidence of existence) and b) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Now in terms of b) I would hazard that you and Davey are using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
In fact a declared position that you do not finally know that there is or isn't but you are acting as though there isn't entails that you are taking the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. It also entails that you do not accept a non materialist or empirical definition of evidence.

[jeremyp]

Now in terms of b) I would hazard that you and Davey are using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

There's nothing wrong with that. If there was an elephant in the room, I'd expect to see a lot of broken furniture, have difficulty moving around it and have to clear up piles of elephant dung. The fact that none of these are the case allows me to make the tentative conclusion that there is no elephant in the room. Absence of evidence where it is expected is evidence of absence although not proof of absence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks.

Not sure where this gets us. I think we all recognise that you cannot prove that something does not exist - but being unable to prove that something does exist provides no support that something does actually exist.

But nowhere am I making that claim

And there are literally countless things that we might consider that could exist where there is no proof that they don't exist - from tartan swans, to invisible flying teapots, to the god Humdinger who lives on the planet Zarg - or indeed the planet Zarg itself.

Yes, and you might stop to wonder why I find those things as ridiculous and unlikely as you do and yet believe in God.

But while no-one claims that tartan swans, invisible flying teapots or the god Humdinger who lives on the planet Zarg actually exist the argument is completely sterile and there is no onus on anyone to provide proof of existence, nor (obviously impossible) non-existence. However as soon as someone actually claims that something exists then the situation changes entirely, based on the burden of proof. At this point there is a complete shift - the burden of proof now rests entirely on the person making the claim that something actually exists - there remains, of course, no onus on anyone to prove that this thing does not exist.

But why start with the atheist position? Why assume it has the stronger claim? The answer, that you dare not give of course, is that it is convention to give the immediate conclusion from empirical criteria precedence. Because that is precisely what you are doing everytime you seek to mete out burden of proof in this argument.

[Gordon]

He cannot demonstrate that, or is not nor never has been able to. That is a fact.

Then why did you ask him to?

But it is nowhere near committing an NPF.

I disagree.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's nothing wrong with that.

Of course there is because, to follow it to it's conclusion it would mean that something never existed until it was discovered

If there was an elephant in the room, I'd expect to see a lot of broken furniture, have difficulty moving around it and have to clear up piles of elephant dung. The fact that none of these are the case allows me to make the tentative conclusion that there is no elephant in the room. Absence of evidence where it is expected is evidence of absence although not proof of absence.

But some would argue that anything from goodness, love, morality, religion, all the way up to the universe or that there is anything itself was 'broken furniture type' evidence, Jeremy. Ignoring it as such while accepting evidence of absence would look a bit special pleady IMHO.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, and you might stop to wonder why I find those things as ridiculous and unlikely as you do and yet believe in God.

Not really - the reason why people typically believe in such things is that they have personally been brought up to believe them within a society that culturally accepts this to be the default position.

So were you to have been brought up on the planet Zarg where people institutionally and culturally believe in Humdinger (without evidence) then you'd be asking me why do you believe in Humdinger but find the concept of the christian god on the planet earth to be ridiculous.

[jeremyp]

Of course there is because, to follow it to it's conclusion it would mean that something never existed until it was discovered

I think you need to start reading the posts to which you respond. What you are doing now makes you look like an idiot.

Nothing in my post leads to the conclusion that things don't exist before they are discovered. Read it.

But some would argue that anything from goodness, love, morality, religion, all the way up to the universe or that there is anything itself was 'broken furniture type' evidence, Jeremy. Ignoring it as such while accepting evidence of absence would look a bit special pleady IMHO.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Is it your contention that religion is evidence for God? I would argue that it is not purely on the grounds that, if God were real, there would only be one religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you need to start reading the posts to which you respond. What you are doing now makes you look like an idiot.

I fail to see the need to get shirty

Nothing in my post leads to the conclusion that things don't exist before they are discovered. Read it.

What do you think absence of evidence is evidence of absence means? I take it as evidence of absence means evidence of non existence. You agreed, or so I thought that it meant that also. I've never said anybody including you sees it as proof of non existence in fact, actually, i've said nobody on here has committed NPF.

 
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Is it your contention that religion is evidence for God? I would argue that it is not purely on the grounds that, if God were real, there would only be one religion.

And I disagree with that, but that would be an argument for elsewhere. My chief argument, as you well know is the principle of sufficient reason although that doesn't give me personal faith in Christ, merely philosophical justification for theism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - the reason why people typically believe in such things is that they have personally been brought up to believe them within a society that culturally accepts this to be the default position.

Typically does not cover those who are not typical.

What is your explanation for the non typical?

Your statement could be dismissed as mere intellectual snobbery given the historically low level of religious adherence in the UK as opposed to high nominality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - the reason why people typically believe in such things is that they have personally been brought up to believe them within a society that culturally accepts this to be the default position.

What has this got to do with not believing in fairy tales and the like?

[Steve H]

What does NPF stand for? Presumably something something fallacy, but I can't find it on any online list of fallacies. I know what it is - saying that if you can't prove something is untrue, it must be true.
PS - I take it you mean the argument from ignorance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance - but what's np? No proof?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does NPF stand for? Presumably something something faacy, but I can't find it on any online list of fallacies. I know [iwhat[/i] it is - saying that if you can't prove something is untrue, it must be true.

I think it was largely concocted here as the ''negative proof fallacy''. If you pointed out that somebody couldn't demonstrate non existence you had committed the NPF.

It is really a bastardisation of the argument from ignorance in which the fallacy is found in asserting that your opponent not being able to disprove your assertion proves your assertion or conversely, asserting that inability to prove something disproves it.

[Gordon]

What does NPF stand for? Presumably something something fallacy, but I can't find it on any online list of fallacies. I know what it is - saying that if you can't prove something is untrue, it must be true.
PS - I take it you mean the argument from ignorance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance - but what's np? No proof?

It is most often, in my experience, used by someone who doesn't understand their obligations under the philosophical burden of proof: where rather than provide support themselves for whatever it is they are asserting they, instead, demand that their opponent shows that said assertion is flawed or wrong.

Vlad's earlier comment noting that Jeremy "cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real" reads to me like a good example of the NPF.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is most often, in my experience, used by someone who doesn't understand their obligations under the philosophical burden of proof: where rather than provide support themselves for whatever it is they are asserting they, instead, demand that their opponent shows that said assertion is flawed or wrong.

Vlad's earlier comment noting that Jeremy "cannot demonstrate that something say like God is not objectively real" reads to me like a good example of the NPF.

Gordon, throwing words around shamanically as per normal.
I'll be charitable Gordon. Noting that someone cannot demonstrate that that something say like God is not objectively real...is only halfway toward the fallacy. To commit the fallacy you would have to add '' And therefore that proves God''. without that, and nobody has ever added that in my recollection, Gordon has been committing the Fallacy fallacy...namely finding one where there isn't one.

[Gordon]

Gordon, throwing words around shamanically as per normal.

'Shamanically' eh! Typical Vlad - when flustered chuck in a pointless adjective.

I'll be charitable Gordon. Noting that someone cannot demonstrate that that something say like God is not objectively real...is only halfway toward the fallacy. To commit the fallacy you would have to add '' And therefore that proves God''. without that, and nobody has ever added that in my recollection

One can look at what you actually, consider the context and your previous musings, and then extrapolate to conclude that you were falling into the NPF - head first.

Gordon has been committing the Fallacy fallacy...namely finding one where there isn't one.

Understanding fallacies was never been your strong point, Vlad: and still isn't. 

[jeremyp]

I fail to see the need to get shirty

What? When you constantly straw man people's arguments and either don't understand or deliberately misread their posts? You have blatantly misrepresented my position several times on this thread. People are going to lose patience with you.

What do you think absence of evidence is evidence of absence means? I take it as evidence of absence means evidence of non existence.

Well done. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Now all you need to do is grasp the fact that evidence and proof are different things.

I've never said anybody including you sees it as proof of non existence in fact, actually, i've said nobody on here has committed NPF.

It's already been pointed out to you did it on this thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's already been pointed out to you did it on this thread.

Roundly and comprehensively rebutted I'm afraid.

Whether I am trying to dodge the burden of proof is a separate matter.

I've said no one has committed NPF including you, twice. So I already know the difference between evidence and final proof. The question rather is about what constitutes evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Typically does not cover those who are not typical.

What is your explanation for the non typical?

Given that you were actually talking about you specifically then I think my point holds water very well.

However if you want to argue more generally - the reality is that it is incredibly rare for individuals brought up in a completely non religious manner to become religious. The population of people who are religious are almost exclusively comprised of people brought up in that religion or (very occasionally) brought up in a different religious tradition and then convert from one religion to another.

And given the propensity and cultural heritage of religion and theism worldwide I suspect there are rather few people who have not been culturally influenced by or culturally aware of the default positions of theism and religion for you to try your thought experiment.

And new religions (as far as I am aware) have never sprung up independently. In other words no christian missionary (for example) ever stumbled across a tribe that had never encountered christianity from some outside source and discovered that they were also christians. Never happens.