If you don't want to explain yourself properly, I won't be able to continue. I can't answer your questions if I don't know what you're asking.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Chuck the god(s)
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Not incorrect evidence, incorrect interpretation. If you’re found next to a dead body holding a bloody knife, many people would conclude that you were a murderer but it’s perfectly possible that you’re not. The evidence – the dead body, the knife and the blood – is all there but the conclusion we draw based upon that evidence could be of something that didn’t actually happen.
No square circles exists. The evidence is the law of identity.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
You are the only one who doesnt get it. Cant help that.
If nothing exists, why find evidence for it?
That is simple english.
Then it's my fault we can't communicate. Still means we can't communicate.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
True.
I'll try one more time.
If a tree does not exist in the middle of a tennis court, why look for evidence that there is one?
Also, if you do look for evidence that this tree exist, what would motivate you find it?
Last edited:
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
Oh so because I don't understand God then he must not be real.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I asked do you (guys) think it make sense to look for evidence for something that doesnt exist; if yes, what would be the motivation.
Has nothing to do with god(s).
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
If there is no dead body, and you still held a bloody knife, why would a bystander look for a dead body (assuming there actually is none around); and, since he doesnt see one, whats the motivation to look?
Better example would be something silly. I can understand why someone would look for the body, but my question is about the actual existence of it not interpretation.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
The title of your OP is "Chuck the god(s)".
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Sorry. Its an English idiom. "To chuck something" means to disregard it. Chuck it/disregard it/ dont bother with it.
I didnt want the question to be around god(s) because that is a different path of question and answer Im not looking for in my OP.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
Oh, well, that's a little deceiving if you don't mind me saying so... It seems that your trying to convince me to do likewise.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
I need a clarification before I can answer.
You see 'evidence' is
1. (noun) 'the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'.
or
2. (verb) be or show evidence of'
So what is/are the 'belief(s) or proposition(s)' you are talking about?
You said, "non-existent thing". What is that?
According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
A nonexistent object is something that does not exist. Some examples often cited are: Zeus, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes, Vulcan, the perpetual motion machine, the golden mountain, the fountain of youth, the round square, etc. Some important philosophers have thought that the very concept of a nonexistent object is contradictory (Hume) or logically ill-formed (Kant, Frege), while others (Leibniz, Meinong, the Russell of Principles of Mathematics) have embraced it wholeheartedly.
In my view the problem is that 'the non-existence of a thing' is different from 'a non-existent thing'.
As you can see, the 'non-existence' of milk in the fridge has evidence.
But... milk is not an example of a 'non-existent thing'.... is it?
I think the question is: Given a particular X, does evidence exist for the proposition that
'X is a non-existent thing'?
This is different than asking: Given a particular X, does evidence exist for the proposition that 'X has not been detected'?
Is 'a tree in the middle of a tennis court' a 'non-existent thing'?
X = 'a tree in the middle of a tennis court'
The proposition is:
'A tree in the middle of a tennis court is a non-existent thing'.
Well, I'm not sure that there is any evidence that a tree in the middle of a tennis court is a non-existent thing. I'm not sure that such evidence could be found. So, it seems to me, I would be better off looking for evidence that
'A tree in the middle of a tennis court is an existent thing'
So I would look for evidence of a tree in the middle of a tennis court.
If I found evidence that confirmed it's existence, then that would be great!
But.... can I really find evidence that a tree in the middle of a tennis court is a non-existent thing?!?
Hmm.
I could find evidence of 'the non-existence of a tree in the middle of a tennis court'. But that is not the same thing as asking for evidence that 'a tree in the middle of a tennis court is a non-existent thing'.
This is a very nuanced discussion.
For example, we also have the well-known aphorism:
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.
On the other hand:
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Sounds very technical. Im very simple. I'll come back to this later.
If a tree does not exist in the middle of a tennis court (if there is no true; nothing there; absent of an item or person), does it make sense to find ways to confirm a tree is not actually there? And what motivation would you do so, if you decide to go about it?
Yes, it's possible to find evidence for something that doesn't exist.
Eg. Evidence pointed to a planet between Mercury and the Sun through applying Newton's calculations of gravity to Mercury's orbit.
This method had proven effective previously in hypotheising celestial bodies unseen. This time, though, it was inadequate, and the formula was proven to be less exact than originally supposed (though still holding utility).
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Ha. You're making this more complicated than it is. I hate doing topics sometimes because you all read more into it rather than reading it as. is.
A computer (cell-phone, whatever) is in front of you. It's there. It exists. No illusions. No metaphysics.
The body of facts is you're typing on it. To make it simple as possible.
Something that does not exist (if your computer was not there), it would be absent of the object that was once in front of you. So, there is nothing that exists/present/it's absent of the computer. We say there is nothing there. To keep it simple.
Change the word to nothing there or lack of something.
If there is no refrigerator, what would motivate you to conclude there is evidence of one regardless if you conclusions are 99.0% correct?
A lot of you conclude firmly that, say, a murder happened and a guy stood over the dead man, you'd conclude that person killed the dead. The person with the knife may be hanging over the dead guy, even touches his knife on it
that does not mean that's evidence (the blood and guy dead) of murder. It's a high probability according to most of our judgement; but, that does not make it fact.
You're complicating a very simple question.
Nope.
If a tree is not in front of you, why find reasons to believe it's there; and, if you do, what motivates you to do so?
No. Not that complicated.
There is no tree in the middle of the court. Hence why it's non-existent. It's not there.
Since there is no tree, why try to find reasons to look for one; and, what is your motivation behind looking for a tree (and ways to find it) when it is not there to begin with?
Unless that person thinks there is a tree there despite our senses saying otherwise.
Thank you. This is the answer to the question.
Why do you think someone would look for one if you're not sure there is evidence to be found of a tree in the middle of the court (that isn't there)?
Curiosity, maybe? I don't know.
What would motivate you to do that?
You were going well in the last two statements. This floored me. I think you kind get what I'm asking now?
A computer (cell-phone, whatever) is in front of you. It's there. It exists. No illusions. No metaphysics.
The body of facts is you're typing on it. To make it simple as possible.
Something that does not exist (if your computer was not there), it would be absent of the object that was once in front of you. So, there is nothing that exists/present/it's absent of the computer. We say there is nothing there. To keep it simple.
Change the word to nothing there or lack of something.
If there is no refrigerator, what would motivate you to conclude there is evidence of one regardless if you conclusions are 99.0% correct?
A lot of you conclude firmly that, say, a murder happened and a guy stood over the dead man, you'd conclude that person killed the dead. The person with the knife may be hanging over the dead guy, even touches his knife on it
that does not mean that's evidence (the blood and guy dead) of murder. It's a high probability according to most of our judgement; but, that does not make it fact.
You're complicating a very simple question.
Nope.
If a tree is not in front of you, why find reasons to believe it's there; and, if you do, what motivates you to do so?
No. Not that complicated.
There is no tree in the middle of the court. Hence why it's non-existent. It's not there.
Since there is no tree, why try to find reasons to look for one; and, what is your motivation behind looking for a tree (and ways to find it) when it is not there to begin with?
Unless that person thinks there is a tree there despite our senses saying otherwise.
Thank you. This is the answer to the question.
Why do you think someone would look for one if you're not sure there is evidence to be found of a tree in the middle of the court (that isn't there)?
Curiosity, maybe? I don't know.
What would motivate you to do that?
You were going well in the last two statements. This floored me. I think you kind get what I'm asking now?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Did something exist there, or was it just invisible to our senses and observation?
Unseen and non-existent are two different words.
If something is unseen, of course, we can find evidence for it. There is motivation to do so, for example, to find life outside our own.
If something does not exist (nothing present), would you find decide to find evidence it was there; and, if yes, what would be your motivation to find it?
Hey...you asked the question!
No planet existed. Evidence (even that which is beyond reasonable doubt) does not equate to fact.
Please consider my post carefully. There was mathematically based evidence for a planet existing between Mercury and the Sun, using Newton's theories, widely accepted as accurate, and previously used to find existing (but unseen) planets.
However, the evidence pointed to something which did not exist, on this occasion. There was no planet. Einstein refined Newton's work.
That is exactly what I have answered. On that occasion, the motivation was to explain apparent anomolies in Mercury's orbital trajectory.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
That’s an entirely different scenario and doesn’t invalidate mine. The simple point remains that it’s perfectly possible for someone to view the available evidence but reach an incorrect conclusion, including a conclusion of something existing which actually doesn’t. There are countless of examples of people concluding that something exists, sometimes with strong evidence and reasoning, only for it to turn out that we’re wrong.
All we have is interpretation though, it’s our sole route of access to reality. That’s what evidence is really about, not every consequence of something’s existence or state, only the consequences we can observe and relate to that thing. If your question was literally just about actual existence, you’d essentially be asking “Can something exist if it doesn’t exist?” which is obviously meaningless.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
You're talking of something different and adding to the question thats not there.
There is only one tennis court.
There is nothing on the court
No interpretation: statement of fact. Nothing.
If you came on the court to find a tree, but what method snd criteria would you use to find something that has no proof nor interpetation of any possible existence?
If you do decide to find reasons and criteria to find this tree, why would you?
How did you ideally come across your criteria for finding a tree that is not there at all. Nothing. Non-existant. Open space. Squat.
No interpretations and no what-ifs. The questions are just. Is.
Last edited: