Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Again, fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. You’re attempting to talk about proof, using the language of logic, to make sweeping claims that logic cannot make.
If you’re saying we can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical, we’re on the same page.
If you’re saying the metaphysical doesn’t exist because no one has proved it and they have to prove it first, you don’t understand how logic, as we understand it today, works.
Edit: to highlight your issues a little, “it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” isn’t logically sound. Unlike Russell’s Teapot, circular logic is an actual, provable fallacy rather than a rhetorical tool that is not a result of logic. More importantly, you’re depending on logic as a system of faith, just like religion, unless you’ve found some results that contradict Gödel and company. We’ve made all of it up and, with our understanding today, it is not objective.
Give me an example of a metaphysical claim, and I will tell you whether it can be proven or disproven. Simply talking about broad subjects doesn't help to clarify the discussion.
In the context of religion, some claims made would be pretty easy to prove if they were true.
For example, many Christians believe that the earth is approx. 6000 years old. This would be very easy to prove, but we've already disproven it 1000x over.
Another claim, for example, is proving whether prayer works. When actually tested, we know that it doesn't (at least, not in the spiritual/"direct connection with god" sense).
I'm not saying that AT ALL. I'm pretty agnostic about most claims.
If someone makes a claim, be it metaphysical, paranormal, or otherwise, then that claim needs to have been formed on some basis of evidence. If that evidence cannot be presented and/or observed and/or tested and/or repeated, then it doesn't support the claim.
People who KNOW that heaven exists have never proven that it does. Neuroscientists can give a dozen reasons why someone might have a near-death experience where a person claims to have "visited heaven", yet someone steeped in religion will never accept those explanations.
Really, that's part of what makes religion so awful. It causes people to believe things that are so illogical, that you'd have to suspend reality in order for it to make any sense. And even then, it's 99% crazy.
I disagree. If I were to hold out my empty hand and say that "the ball in my hand does not exist because it does not exist", that would be true, would it not?
Circular logic is a strategy used in religious debates almost as a means to deadlock the debate (which is to their advantage, since they can't prove anything otherwise).
That's why the rebuttal, in the context of a religious claim, "It doesn't exist because it doesn't exist" is as lazy and unhelpful as saying "god exists because god exists".
I've spent too many hours watching "debates" where the religious side will simply spiral into a black hole of laziness as to render the entire debate a complete waste of time. They'll say "you can't know that god doesn't exist because you don't know everything", yet they'll turn around and say that they are 100% certain that god exists because they know god exists. I mean, where can you go from there?
You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.
Cool, we’re on the same page.
This is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value. If you’re going to rigorously define evidence, you’re going to need to create a system that can’t contradict itself. Per your quotes, either there is a ball in my hand or there isn’t.
This is called a consistent system. We agree on a set of axioms that we will achieve results from. If we have a consistent system and build a bunch of results on top of that, eventually we’ll run into things that are true but we cannot prove. We know this because of a famous result I’ve already mentioned. In other words, we must take central results on faith. A common one that, several decades ago, was met with ridicule because it was “so illogical” mathematicians had “suspend reality in order for it to make any sense” is the axiom of choice.
In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.
You’re conflating a tautology with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning boils down to “A because B; B because A;” and you’ve said “A because A” without any support for A. The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.
Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.
Religion is quite literally the topic that the OP brought forth. And there is no logic when it comes to religion, so why bother sidelining the thread with discussion about logic rather than region?
I think you're overcomplicating things.
If someone says that a character named Noah put two of every species of animal on a boat, can that be verified? Is it even possible mathematically, knowing what we know about how many species of animals exist, and the volume that two of every species would take up? Yes, and mathematically, the story is BS.
What about the age of the earth? We know that it's older than 6000 years, so that's another religious belief thrown out the window.
What about the age of humans? The bible has people 400+ years old. Can this be proven? We know that there are no humans alive or ever alive, that could be that old.
It gets even worse when you think about the miracles of saints. Why is it, at a time when we could absolutely be able to verify whether something is a miracle or not, we don't get miracles.
God was doing all sorts of things merely two thousand years ago. Crazy thing like turning people into salt and raining fire down from the sky.
These things don't happen any more, conveniently.
I'm asking them to prove what they believe in to be true. It's as simple as that.
People devote their entire lives believing. They ruin their kids lives through their beliefs. They also ruin the lives of others through the stripping away of basic rights, all based on their own beliefs.
It really isn't too much to ask for their beliefs to be challenged.
And yet I can claim that there is a god, without producing evidence of that god, and everyone is to believe that the god exists? Because that's what religious folks are doing.
At least with the ball example, I proved that it doesn't exist by showing you that there is no ball. Why is there no ball? Because it was made up. It never existed. See how that works?
Yes. Courts, scientists, and insurance companies do it all the time.
Do you have an example of a claim that we can test this out on?
All of this continues to go past you. You want to attack the metaphysical for its belief system yet you completely miss when you make the same logical leaps for yours. How can insurance companies prove something? Why are they right? If a court makes a decision, is that the correct one? Prove it. Only you can’t use logic or anything that comes from logical systems because, based on your attacks on religion, you’re not allowed to use the faith to prove the faith.
I want to challenge baseless claims. My sarcasm in response to baseless claims is intended to show how completely useless "logical leaps" actually are. I'm surprised you haven't caught on.
Interviews, dash camera footage, police reports, etc. Evidence of what happened is gathered.
If they are applying the law fairly and without prejudice, then it is often correct.
But in a court, you at least have the opportunity for both a plaintiff and defendant to present evidence of their position.
If you had someone in court say that "god told me to do it", they had better have some strong evidence supporting that, no? In those cases, that person's lawyer may try to argue that their client is insane, and rightfully so.
Faith = the belief in something without evidence. Faith itself is not evidence for anything.
If religion is going to use faith to "prove" all their claims, they will be challenged.
You haven’t shown that an insurance decision is correct. You also didn’t show that a court decision is right. You’re not seeing the forest for the trees.
Your faith is that evidence trumps all. That is a baseless claim unless you can prove it without the structures of evidence-based discourse. You are using logic to prove your statements which is logically equivalent to “god said so.” You argue your beliefs trump theirs; you are equivalent using your foundation. Your religion is logic which, as I have pointed out many times without comment from you, is just as made up as any religion and more importantly has the introspective capabilities to prove so.
This is a fairly straightforward epistemological argument; I’ve run out of ways to say it. Good luck!
Are you suggesting that insurance companies and courts simply roll the dice to come up with a verdict or conclusion? That none of the evidence presented means anything?
How do you make decisions if you can't believe anything? I can't imagine having a worldview where evidence counts for nothing and faith guides my every choice. It's simply nonsensical.
Evidence removes faith from the equation. And the more of it you have, the better the quality of the evidence, the more people can test the conclusion, etc., the stronger your claim/belief/hypothesis is.
This is something we learned as young children: "how did you come up with that result?" requires explanation. If you can't explain it, then you have no understanding.
You and me both. Best to you.
You can’t explain logic so I’m not sure you have an understanding of the arguments you’re attempting to make. I’m not seeing any justification other than “I think it’s it right.” I’ve seen no counters to the quantitative philosophical propositions and a general lack of understanding of any of the things that underpin your belief system. You still haven’t explained why your system is right.
You're asking me to explain why evidence (rather than faith) is required to substantiate a claim? Are you trolling?
If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else. You don’t know why you believe what you believe and you’re completely incapable (so far, based on the evidence you’ve provided) of doing anything beyond “James Randi says it so it must be true.” You seem to blindly believe anything anyone in a position of authority states (courts, insurance always right provided they have a modicum of evidence to support their claim). You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.
You remind me of the evangelicals I’m also not a fan of.
Why evidence based truth is better than no evidence faith? Again, are you trolling?
What makes you believe the messages you send are being received? Faith?
I'll assume you aren't trolling.
If I make a claim, there are pretty much three options:
I can either substantiate that claim, often with evidence.
Or, I can say that "The claim is true, and while I can't prove it, I have faith".
Or, I can say " I'm not sure if the claim is true or not, but I will gather enough evidence, data, test the claim, repeat it, and see if it still holds true (a distilled version of the scientific method).
Only 1 and 3 will validate the claim, while 2 doesn't even try.
From what it sounds like, you believe that option 2 is as valid as options 1 and 3 for validating a claim and finding what's true.
What makes you think that?
You keep saying that I haven't explained why options 1 and 3 are right. I'm saying they are the best options we have.
Absolutely, 100% better than option 2, which is lazy and completely disregards any truths.
Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong? You don’t seem to realize any of the foundation you’re building on and you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.
Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple. But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough. We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.
So why are you right? Why is your frame correct?
Why aren't they correct?
And why isn't 2 wrong?
I'm saying that providing evidence is better than not providing evidence, if the objective is to verify/confirm/support a claim.
This is universally accepted and applied to just about every aspect of life. It's how you make daily decisions, too. I'm sure you've based 100 decisions on this method just in the last day.
Sorry, but you don't have irrefutable proof that the sky is purple, but you can say that the sky appears purple from inside that room. You haven't been able to explain why it's purple, you've only made an observation.
Science has already explained why the real sky appears in colours, and it was done through more than believing the lie of a single person.
From everything you said, it would be just as right to believe (the lie) without any further investigation. Or even worse, you'd make up a story about the gods being upset with you, and they turned the sky purple.
That makes no sense. Going outside to get a different perspective, realize that the sky does not appear purple, and enter a line of further inquiry and investigation is exactly how you'd get answers.
The more evidence you gather, the closer you get to the truth. And when you have enough evidence, you'll be able to prove and test your claim with mathematical precision.
With evidence to support that hypothesis, you would be as close to right as you can be.
It would surely be better than blindly believing the liar, no?