b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 8088845 (Thread)

# Er...
You can't prove the existence of anything. You can only state firm belief.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:25, archived)
# But
I have no problem with an inability to prove the existence of anything. Adherence to the prinicple of falsifiability makes for good science, good argument, and intellectual good taste.

All my beliefs are provisional. I'll update them as necessary. It's for that reason that god doesn't feature therein.

But you can do more than state firm belief. You can cite reasons. I wouldn't be happy with a statment like "I believe x" - I'd want "I believe x because... and here's why not-x is implausible."
(I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:29, archived)
# depends.
if you're a twunt,things exist by proxy of your empirical knowledge of them.if you're a scientist,things cannot be ruled out in every case.
i'm hungry.
(Fuckpig "That's not even a pound a midget.", Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:30, archived)
# As am I
I feel I may have to abandon this contretemps in favour of buying some lunch.

Toodle-oo!
(I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:32, archived)
# Doesn't logic dictate that everything is possible?
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:33, archived)
# not unless
they changed the rules of logic while i was in the bathroom.
(Fuckpig "That's not even a pound a midget.", Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:34, archived)
# So some things are absolutely impossible?
Where does this put the parallel universes and realities ideas then?
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:36, archived)
# logic,n.
a system of evaluation of proposed theories which are tested based on empirical knowledge and subject to cross-references with systematic inference.
parallel universes?Star Trek.
(Fuckpig "That's not even a pound a midget.", Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:37, archived)
# All universes...
All universes must be possible universes, and some things are just impossible. For example, a gold mountain may exist in some possible universes, and not in others. But in all possible universes, it must either exist or not exist. There are some statements - "A golden mountain both exists and doesn't exist" - that can never be true.

(Admittedly, this is taking me back to fresher metaphysics, and that was a long time ago. But I think the prinicple is right.)
(I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:47, archived)
# Yes you can
The can of Strongbow in my hand exists you Cunt!
(I helped save b3ta! Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:32, archived)
# now prove it
by giving me a can.
(Fuckpig "That's not even a pound a midget.", Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:33, archived)
# Yeah, if you consider everything except possibly math a belief, then atheism is a belief.
In a more useful definition of "prove" you can prove that many things exist in the world with as much certainty as you can prove that the world itself exists.

A positive claim of existence requires evidence, otherwise you're just making things up. Atheists don't think there is enough evidence to prove that god exists or even to make it relatively likely that (s)he exists.

If there is no evidence to think something exists, the default position should be that it doesn't. This is not a belief system, it's one of the basic mechanisms for rational thought.

The agnostics are the ones that either think there is inconclusive evidence, or they refuse to apply to god the same mechanisms of thought the apply to everything else. The atheists just say god does not exists.

(I helped save b3ta! but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all foreskin of the apocalypse, Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:37, archived)