Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Halx · 03-01-2010, 08:36 AM

As I write my blog and I get responses from people who agree with me and people who disagree with me, I become increasingly aware of the relative reality that we all individually live in. Now, to me, there is only one reality, and everyone is free to make their interpretation of it, right or wrong, but it doesn't change the actuality. In any case, one's form of logic may clash with another form, making debate and learning impossible.

I don't intend to turn this into a debate about the wrong thing, but I think I must use examples to illustrate my point. I will use the god/no god debate.

There are several logical steps one can use to determine the existence or non-existence of god. Seeing as that is the case, it would make sense to determine that some uses of logic are incorrect, as they lead to diametrically opposing conclusions.

A) There exists no evidence for god, therefore it is impossible to argue for or against his existence.
- This, to me, is the most logical statement to be made.

B) If there were evidence for god, then faith would no longer be necessary. Therefore, god must exist without evidence.
- This is what I call an unlosable argument. A notion is introduced that, by definition, cannot be disputed. This does not prove a point at all, but makes it impossible to oppose.
- An unlosable argument is not a won argument, simply because the object of proof can be replaced by a wildcard.

C) The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim.
- The real question is who is making the positive claim. Is it the party claiming the existence of something that cannot be proved? Is it the party claiming the non-existence of something that cannot be proved?

D) You cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.
- This is the most confounding point I can make. It wraps back into the unlosable argument point.

E) The logical advantage belongs to the party that holds the argument that CAN be disproved, but isn't.
- This is my opinion, but I would like someone to disagree with it.

What is logical to you?

03-01-2010, 08:36 AM	#1 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	What is logical to you? As I write my blog and I get responses from people who agree with me and people who disagree with me, I become increasingly aware of the relative reality that we all individually live in. Now, to me, there is only one reality, and everyone is free to make their interpretation of it, right or wrong, but it doesn't change the actuality. In any case, one's form of logic may clash with another form, making debate and learning impossible. I don't intend to turn this into a debate about the wrong thing, but I think I must use examples to illustrate my point. I will use the god/no god debate. There are several logical steps one can use to determine the existence or non-existence of god. Seeing as that is the case, it would make sense to determine that some uses of logic are incorrect, as they lead to diametrically opposing conclusions. A) There exists no evidence for god, therefore it is impossible to argue for or against his existence. - This, to me, is the most logical statement to be made. B) If there were evidence for god, then faith would no longer be necessary. Therefore, god must exist without evidence. - This is what I call an unlosable argument. A notion is introduced that, by definition, cannot be disputed. This does not prove a point at all, but makes it impossible to oppose. - An unlosable argument is not a won argument, simply because the object of proof can be replaced by a wildcard. C) The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim. - The real question is who is making the positive claim. Is it the party claiming the existence of something that cannot be proved? Is it the party claiming the non-existence of something that cannot be proved? D) You cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist. - This is the most confounding point I can make. It wraps back into the unlosable argument point. E) The logical advantage belongs to the party that holds the argument that CAN be disproved, but isn't. - This is my opinion, but I would like someone to disagree with it. What is logical to you? __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]