Here's one for the religious..

[onewheeldave]

You can always claim non-existent "things" exist while placing them out of reach. So I think you are wrong.

 

We're not talking about 'claims' (anyone can claim anything they like)- we're talking about 'proof'.

[Ryedo40]

We're not talking about 'claims' (anyone can claim anything they like)- we're talking about 'proof'.

 

So what proof would you have for the plenty of things(existing objects) that don't exist?

[quisquose]

You're wrong- plenty of things can be proven to not exist.

 

If you were right, then you'd presumably have a proof that a 'proof that something doesn't exist' doesn't/can't exist.

 

Also known as a contradiction

 

Feel free to conflate deductive reasoning with empirical argument if you wish, but don't expect us to take it seriously.

[onewheeldave]

So what proof would you have for the plenty of things(existing objects) that don't exist?

 

For example, a proof that there does not exist a pair of integers that can express a fraction equal to the square root of 2.

 

(Easily google-able if you want to see the actual proof).

 

Though your question seems a bit ill-formed, as you seem to want to attach the lablel 'existing objects' to preceed 'things', which is contradictory if those are things that don't exist.

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2013 at 14:53 ----------

 

Feel free to conflate deductive reasoning with empirical argument if you wish, but don't expect us to take it seriously.

It was in response to-

 

You never will, nobody can prove that something doesn't exist.

 

 

who didn't there specify that his claim was restricted to empirical objects.

[quisquose]

But RootsBooster is correct, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. That is logical deductive reasoning, so true.

[Ryedo40]

For example, a proof that there does not exist a pair of integers that can express a fraction equal to the square root of

 

I'd have thought it obvious the conversation wasn't about mathematical proofs.

[RootsBooster]

You're wrong- plenty of things can be proven to not exist.

 

If you were right, then you'd presumably have a proof that a 'proof that something doesn't exist' doesn't/can't exist.

 

Also known as a contradiction

 

 

Can you name one thing that has been proven to not exist?

[onewheeldave]

Can you name one thing that has been proven to not exist?

 

OK- if you're excluding deductive objects, I guess you'd better define exactly what you're meaning by 'things'.

 

Then I'll see if I can think of some things that can/have been proven to not exist.

 

So, what do you mean by 'things'?

[RootsBooster]

OK- if you're excluding deductive objects, I guess you'd better define exactly what you're meaning by 'things'.

 

Then I'll see if I can think of some things that can/have been proven to not exist.

 

So, what do you mean by 'things'?

 

"Things" usually means objects or material bodies, for the purpose of this thread let's say things that can have physical mass or have an effect on physical mass

[PaliRichard]

The view that religious people hold who claim they can prove their religious beliefs with science[/Quote]

 

Oh ok, I just wasn't sure what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.

 

I don't think the early scientists were trying to legitimate Biblical stories, I think they had strong enough faith that they were true at that time. I think they were trying to prove that God existed by looking for patterns, for proof of a rational design within nature. It's only since we've become sceptical of the Bible and developed more advanced techniques that we can now, for example, look back for scientific proof of a great flood or read the contemporary texts to see how well they fit the Bible stories[/Quote]

 

If there faith was strong enough that they didn't need to legitimise Bible stories surely it would also be strong enough that they didn't have to try to prove God existed by looking for patterns or a rational design in nature. That doesn't make sense.

 

Anyway we know that they did look for patterns in nature as proof of God, we know that they did view the Biblical stories as historic fact and look for physical evidence to verify it. This is well documented. I'm just confused as to why you think strong faith would lead them to do one and not the other.

 

I don't believe there is just one scientific method, there are many methods and these have altered and branched out as our understanding of the world has changed. Each scientist must first design the method of experiment before the experiment can go ahead. The underlying principle I agree, is that data collection is optimised, the experiment is repeatable and the interpretation is as objective as possible[/Quote]

 

What you're calling the underlying principle here is what I would call the scientific method. I think you're confusing the scientific method with methods for experimenting, which of course evolve and change as the object of that experiment changes. The scientific method however, the underlying principle, remains one of the cornerstones (and constants) of the thing we call 'science'.

 

Well, I'm discussing the impact of western science and philosophy on religion so Christianity most fits the bill in this case[/Quote]

 

But western science itself has been influenced by middle and far eastern ideas, and the Philosophy of religion is in no way restricted to Christianity (even if we limited it to the Abrahamic God it would still include Islam and Judaism). So just choosing Christianity (which, I have to say is a particularly easy 'target' anyway) seems a little odd. It's a little like discussing horses as a species and limiting your conversation to the grand national, it cuts a lot of important information out.

 

Because it would mean that there was a rational underpinning to the basic building block of the Universe. Some interpret that as meaning that there was a rational creator behind it[/Quote]

 

Why would it? Why would it offer 'Christians' proof that God existed specifically? My particle physics is reasonable but by no means expert, however understanding the little I do I am baffled by how it could offer proof of God. Maybe I'm missing something but I'm lost as to how the Higgs Boson could provide proof of God (what I lack for in particle physics I make up for in religious philosophy and I still don't understand how you connect the two) - you really are going to have to expand with an 'idiots guide to the higgs boson' step by step guide for me I'm afraid.

 

Because I like to give credit where it's due. Marx and I have come to the same conclusions through our very different life experiences, but seeing as he came first and influenced our culture in such a way that it's influenced me, I'm quite happy to credit him with it and not get too miffed that he didn't subscribe to 'Cavegirlism' when writing his thesis[/Quote]

 

But I'm not talking to Marx, I'm talking to Cavegirl, and in this instance it is the form and reasoning and fluidity of her life experiences that I'm trying to understand and have a conversation with, not Marx.

 

I like to give credit where it's due too - and I really credit Cavegirl with being an intelligent poster and fun to spar with on SF. The problem is I'm never sure who I'm talking to because she has a list of celebrity Philosophical masks she masquerades in and it's a bit like pass the parcel sometimes. The wrapping is lovely but I'd much rather get to the present inside.

 

This is precisely what I meant by you taking a pluralist view- the reductionist view is too simplistic for you because if you subscribed to it, I think it would undermine the basis of your faith or perhaps devalue the breadth of it- it turns the sacred into the mundane[/Quote]

 

I think you misunderstand me and misunderstand my relationship with Buddhism. Let's take a wonderful cruise ship filled with delights (the sacred). The object of Buddhism is not only to see that the cruise ship is nothing more than a boat serving a purpose (which would be the mundane) - but to get rid of the boat altogether! If my faith was turned upside down to the point that I was shown the simple truth of things, in Buddhist terms I would be enlightened.

 

The reductionist view is too simplistic because it is too simplistic. When I started out in my Zen training I had the benefit of an intense introduction to Buddhism. I have since left the Zen school of Buddhism but still see students of Zen falling into the same trap I did - they 'think' they have the answers to things because they have grasped the 'simple' truth. The difficulty is that what they have actually done is grabbed hold of the 'idea' of the truth and missed it altogether.

 

When you're looking for a destination you're far better off understanding the whole map than just the direction the compass points in. Reducing things to their simplest forms can be tremendously helpful, but taking them out of context can lead you down the wrong road altogether.

 

No religious person could fully subscribe to the Marxist view, without it undermining their faith, which is why it was so powerful in undermining the Christian church. You're just being true to who you are and I respect that[/Quote]

 

As I have said before being true to myself is not being true to my faith - it is, as the name suggests, a faith in a particular thing. I believe in many things, no single one defines life on the whole. I'm not the same as a Christian (for example), I don't believe (and my religion doesn't claim) to be the one and only absolute truth - so its collapse (which is actually its aim) doesn't mean I 'lose' a vital part of myself.

 

For me, I have no faith, I'm able to agree with the Marxist view (with a Cavegirl twist) which is actually far from simplistic if you recognise its social precursers and consequences. I'm glad you seem to like discussing things with me, I hope that's really the case because it often isn't when followed by a 'but'. As I've said, we just see some things differently and for me, that's a good position for an interesting debate[/Quote]

 

The 'but's' are often because I partially agree with you but many times I think you stop short because (to use yesterdays analogy) haven't got your cookery book. I find it frustrating because you often make interesting points then spoiling it by sticking the quantification of Marx or Hume into it. Which from my perspective is like you sticking a hand over a candle, it dulls the flame.

 

An extremely sensible approach, but are you certain that what you define as lies, another doesn't perceive as their own truth?[/Quote]

 

Not when they come from within myself. I know myself, I know when the truth is present and when lies are present. another cannot percieve them as anything until I give them lifr by acting on those impulses. So my determination not to lie doesn't give others the opportunity to assess those lies as truth or otherwise.

 

I was trying to explain the basis of Buddhist pluralism here, so it was more of an aside. Yes I agree there's room for all beliefs or lack of (within reason), but I don't hold a pluralist approach to the human invention or design of gods. I agree there's been an evolution of ritual and later organised religion and I agree that once invented gods have evolved themselves, but I hold the view that all deities, at the point of invention, were brought into the world to serve some political purpose- there was a distinct social need that they fulfilled (or they wouldn't be adopted widescale) and I like the fact that occasionally we can discover evidence for that need[/Quote]

 

I disagree. I think once deities were believed in, once they were manifest and accepted, however that manifestation came into being then there will have been some, as the tribal structure or the society developed that would seek to employ their positions as figures of authority within that structure who will have used the idea of God to further their own political ends.

 

We still see this, in all religions, today. What we don't see today is someone just coming up with the idea of God and then turning that into a political tool. Even the dodgiest of religious cults has already had a certain ideal that they abide by, or accept which they then turn into a way of making gains for themselves.

 

The problem with your idea is that it would rely on taking what would essentially be nothing and using it to garner power for yourself. Any advertiser will tell you that you need a product to before you can sell it, but the easiest to sell are those that already exist. That's exactly why new products are so hard to get off the ground and why existing products are constantly rebranded as 'bigger and better' - because taking a name you trust is easier to sell.

 

Let's look at God like this. I'm a priest and my God is YHWH from the religion of Christianity. I'm going up against another priest who represents the religion of Tum Tum. Already I'm onto a winner, because my product has already got followers, to get my own political idealogy going I just 'piggy back' on a legitimate idea, and once they're hooked subtley change the product - I don't rebrand, I just change the product - that way I get my way.

 

That's how religious 'extremists' get their following (and it works so well even those on the outside confuse it for the real thing much of the time) they already have a product. How many listners do you think Abu Hamza would get if he represented the Tum Tum religion?

 

Then you'll be pleased to know (and not to have to hear) that I play my guitar having pretty much zero knowledge of musical theory My perspective isn't about 'real life' because 'real life' can't be applied to the past; cultures, perspectives and behaviours change too radically even over relatively short periods of time (think back to the '70's). My perspective is about interpretation- how do we interpret what we uncover from the past, be it material remains or texts, in the most objective, sensible manner possible given what we know? [/Quote]

 

Real life can be applied to the past. Because we are dealing with human beings, and that's what we are, and we're animals, and our basic behaviours and longings are still the same as they were. To look at a history text book removes longings and desires and life and reduces it to a linear that was then this is now irrelevance. Terry Jones once said of history (I'm paraphrasing as I can't remember the exact quote) that when we look at the history books we see kings and queens and knights and a real romantic idea arises in us of the past - but the reality is that most of the people of those times had rotting teeth and were covered in s**t.

 

The interpretation of texts that we have no idea about is one thing, but when I look at the texts of Buddhism, the oldest of which are some 2000 years old they make much more sense when I look at them as a human being than when I just look at them as a scholar - because they deal with human issues. History is alive, it's in each one of us, because each one of those people from the past were alive, and had the same emotions and feelings and pain as we do. Ewan McGregor said that once he'd been around the world he realised that we were all just the same, regardless of whether we were rich or poor or whatever our circumstance - I truly believe we'd gain much more from history if we kept this in mind - whether we are looking at recent or ancient history we are looking at our history.

 

Perhaps one day someone will come along with evidence that the authors of the bible were constantly high on magic mushrooms and if so, I'll recognise that Freud's argument holds more weight than Marx's and change my opinion accordingly- do you see? It's not a static opinion, not do I present it as infalliable, just as the best I have at present[/Quote]

 

And what about the feelings and love and loss that Cavegirl has been through? Why take Freud's argument or Marx's? Why don't you just see it in the context of you're own experience?

 

Perhaps they just don't understand where their ideas come from enough to elucidate them on the forum? They've been influenced by our culture and their own specific environments and histories but perhaps they don't recognise how exactly. If they actually believe what they're saying then there will be some reason behind it, but if it isn't clear to them why, if they can't refer to specifics, then it could be daunting to try to open up about it on a forum[/Quote]

 

I agree, but the point you've missed is that they are not saying they don't understand where their ideas come from, they are making a specific claim and putting forward the opinion that not only do they understand it, but they understand it enough to say it constitutes 'proof'. You're above quote works for many religious people, but not those this thread is aimed at.

 

I agree, it's a rubbish speaker that would do that and I hope he was pulled up strongly for doing it[/Quote]

 

These things tend to be aimed at people who already believe the proposition and so such 'pulling up' usually does nothing more than reinforce those being indoctrinated's belief. That is why this thread was started, I know there are such people on this forum and I wanted to see if they could put their money where their mouth is. As we're still waiting for a response I'm guessing they wont, but trust me, when they go back to their 'Bible study groups' or whatever they'll still be spouting the same old rubbish loud from the rooftops where they can do so in a nice safe and unchallenged environment.