From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 10:10:58 MST
metahuman
> Sent: 20 November 2003 1722
[metahuman]
> Were you the one that made that erroneous statement awhile back that
> essentially read, "evidence is not required to prove a negative"?
[Blunderov1]
I would be both surprised and regretful to discover that this was true.
>
> [Blunderov]
> Statements pertaining to existence must surely be couched in a way so
as
> to permit a falsification or be dismissed as meaningless? It is not
> possible to produce definitive evidence that there are NO fairies at
the
> bottom of my garden unless we are prepared to defer the decision until
> the end of time. It IS possible to produce evidence that there ARE
> fairies at the bottom of the garden by the simple expedient of being
> there at the same time as any one fairy.
>
> [metahuman]
> It's 7:06 AM. I haven't slept. Your paragraph is confusing (or
confused).
[Blunderov1]
Please forgive my lack of clarity. Restated; it is not possible to
furnish proof of the non-existence of something. It is possible to
furnish proof of the existence of something.
The portion of the definition that suggests that there is a lack of
proof of the non-existence of gods therefore asks for an impossible
thing, and should be excised from the definition.
>
> [Blunderov]
> To my mind, if we restrict ourselves to the statement that 'There is
> insufficient evidence for the existence of gods' then there is
> insufficient reason to bother oneself any further on the subject until
> somebody actually sights one. (I don't seriously entertain the
> possibility of there really being fairies at the bottom of my garden.)
>
> [metahuman]
> When writing definitions, it is necessary to remove needless
commentary.
> Yes, most Virians would accept that the existence or non-existence of
gods
> is "rationally irrelevant" as localroger puts it. However, this
definition
> is not concerned with the Church of Virus. It is focused on a
particular
> identifier: atheism. It is a contained context.
>
> [Blunderov]
> So is it really true, as is sometimes suggested, that the most
rational
> position is one of agnosticism?
>
> [metahuman]
> Yes. Again, you have to keep the context in mind.
>
> - "Strong" atheism is the absolute belief that gods cannot and DO NOT
> exist.
>
> "Weak" atheism is the neutral position. It is neither a positive or a
> negative.
>
> + "Weak" theism is the precautionary belief that gods can and DO
exist.
>
> + "Strong" theism is the absolute belief that gods can and DO exist.
>
> Hopefully you understand this so I don't have to wake up and draw a
> picture.
[Blunderov1]
May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. But it does seem to me that
if one redrafts the definition as suggested, it is more rational to
conclude from it that gods do not exist rather than to conclude that
they might. For this to be suspected there would need to be some other,
so far unstated, premise.
Best Regards
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 20 2003 - 10:11:46 MST