4 ms·

I don't believe loup-vaillant was saying that it is possible to prove a negative such as "no god exists". Rather, he was saying that since he doesn't perceive e

by sofal 15y ago

I don't believe loup-vaillant was saying that it is possible to prove a negative such as "no god exists". Rather, he was saying that since he doesn't perceive even the slightest bit of evidence for the claim "a god exists", he cannot simply make himself believe in that positive claim despite this. Remember where the burden of proof lies.

melling 15y ago
I understood him. There isn't any evidence for intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, but wouldn't you say that it's fair to say that it could exist? Furthermore, until we've searched every planet, would shouldn't rule it out.
- sofal 15y ago
  Since the existence of intelligent life here is established and unquestioned, it is fair to say that it could exist elsewhere as well. In the case of a deity, the mere existence of even one out of the thousands of proposed throughout history has not been established.
  - melling 15y ago
    So, what can we conclude? There may or may not be intelligent somewhere else, and there exists no god such that...? In short, we have concluded nothing because as good scientists we know that we don't have enough information to conclude anything here. Back to HN stories?
    - sofal 15y ago
      Can we conclude that it is reasonable to not accept claims for which there is no evidence?
      - melling 15y ago
        Probably not. I wouldn't simply discount something. For example, for a long time people assumed that black swans didn't exist. Hence the term "black swan event." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory The world was flat for centuries. The earth was the center of the universe. The atom was indivisible. Nothing escapes a black hole. That's true, right? Nothing existed before the Big Bang? We pretty much knew everything about physics that we needed to know until Einstein came along. I would pretty much question everything.
        sofal 15y ago
        Sure, but there are an infinite number of propositions that you might want to consider if you're determined to not discount anything for which there is no evidence. For example, you may want to seriously consider the possibilities that danilocampos enumerated above, i.e. all-powerful rhinoceros, etc. After all, why should anyone discount those theories?
        melling 15y ago
        No one has ever claimed to have seen an all powerful rhinoceros or spent a few thousand years writing about it, etc. If I told you that aliens dropped off some DNA here a few million years ago, came back 40,000 years ago and told us some stories, would that be believable? Can we discount it? :-)

by sofal 15y ago

melling 15y ago

I understood him. There isn't any evidence for intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, but wouldn't you say that it's fair to say that it could exist? Furthermore, until we've searched every planet, would shouldn't rule it out.

sofal 15y ago
Since the existence of intelligent life here is established and unquestioned, it is fair to say that it could exist elsewhere as well. In the case of a deity, the mere existence of even one out of the thousands of proposed throughout history has not been established.
- melling 15y ago
  So, what can we conclude? There may or may not be intelligent somewhere else, and there exists no god such that...? In short, we have concluded nothing because as good scientists we know that we don't have enough information to conclude anything here. Back to HN stories?
  - sofal 15y ago
    Can we conclude that it is reasonable to not accept claims for which there is no evidence?
    - melling 15y ago
      Probably not. I wouldn't simply discount something. For example, for a long time people assumed that black swans didn't exist. Hence the term "black swan event." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory The world was flat for centuries. The earth was the center of the universe. The atom was indivisible. Nothing escapes a black hole. That's true, right? Nothing existed before the Big Bang? We pretty much knew everything about physics that we needed to know until Einstein came along. I would pretty much question everything.
      - sofal 15y ago
        Sure, but there are an infinite number of propositions that you might want to consider if you're determined to not discount anything for which there is no evidence. For example, you may want to seriously consider the possibilities that danilocampos enumerated above, i.e. all-powerful rhinoceros, etc. After all, why should anyone discount those theories?
        melling 15y ago
        No one has ever claimed to have seen an all powerful rhinoceros or spent a few thousand years writing about it, etc. If I told you that aliens dropped off some DNA here a few million years ago, came back 40,000 years ago and told us some stories, would that be believable? Can we discount it? :-)