Gordifnishette: A Thought Experiment

[Maverick]

A while ago, I participated in a debate at the now defunct IYouth.org message board. During that debate, I proposed that there is a deity called Gordifnishette and that I am a Gordifnishetteist. Now I would like to post the same question here:

Can you prove Gordifnishette doesn't exist?

[tamara]

Aw, Mav, haven't we just agreed that global proofs do not exist?

Nor global disproofs... as an extension....

Flogging a dead horse (grumble, grumble...)...

I haven't yet read all the thread above, but it certainly does not follow (as you say in the conclusion) that faith is irrational. That is a non-sequitur.

God cannot be proven, God cannot be disproven. Nuff said.

[Supremor]

At this point it's probably good to extend Tamara's point:

1)The link between smoking and lung cancer is not PROVEN(is that how u spell it)
2)The theory of relativity is not PROVEN

Also, your point can be taken further Maverick if I am to say that I don't believe anything exists except myself. Can you disprove this?

[Maverick]

Many theists often ask atheists to prove that God does not exist. The point of the IYouth.org debate was to demonstrate that asking an atheist to prove a negative is irrational. I attempted to do that by creating a deity of my own and making the same request of the Christian posters at that particular message board.

tamara

Aw, Mav, haven't we just agreed that global proofs do not exist?

Nor global disproofs... as an extension....

I don't recall ever stating that I agreed or disagreed with that statement. You made that statement in another thread. But I don't remember ever coming to a conclusion.

tamara

I haven't yet read all the thread above, but it certainly does not follow (as you say in the conclusion) that faith is irrational.

First, let me make a clarification. There are several ways people usually interpet the word faith. Faith can mean 1.) a form of trust (such as the kind of faith a person has in his/her spouse) and 2.) the acceptance of something as absolute truth without proof (the definition I currently have in the Terms & Definitions page).

In that thread, when I mentioned faith, I was using the second definition.

tamara, can you demonstrate how faith in God can be rational?

tamara

God cannot be proven, God cannot be disproven. Nuff said.

Does that statement qualify as an absolute claim? How do you know that God cannot be proven or disproven? Wouldn't that require omniscience on your part?

Supremor, I don't see a clear connection between your first two statements. Can you elaborate?

Supremor

Also, your point can be taken further Maverick if I am to say that I don't believe anything exists except myself. Can you disprove this?

The fact that you are asking someone else to disprove your belief holds it suspect. If you don't believe that anything exists except for yourself, why would you be asking someone other than yourself to disprove that statement?

[tamara]

I don't recall ever stating that I agreed or disagreed with that statement. You made that statement in another thread. But I don't remember ever coming to a conclusion.

I hope you make up your mind soon. It's hard to go on with anything if you keep on about proofs. They exist no more than Gordifnishette. How about using the word evidence instead?

Yes, there are different ways to do faith -- the dogmatic, absolutist way, and the fallibilist way. I have faith the fallibilist way. And I would agree that the dogmatic way is not rational.

tamara, can you demonstrate how faith in God can be rational?

I thought I did a pretty good job on the other board! Since people piled on top of me yelling, then kicking me out, is a fair indication I had something going...
Anyways, I have my hands full at the moment with the evidence issue...

tamara Quote:God cannot be proven, God cannot be disproven. Nuff said.

Does that statement qualify as an absolute claim? How do you know that God cannot be proven or disproven? Wouldn't that require omniscience on your part?

It's just my summation of my belief. Whatever I believe, is predicated on fallibilism, which means I accept that I may be wrong. About anything. That's a given.

Omniscience is required for non-fallibilist knowledge. Proofs do not exist precisely because we are not omniscient, and are in fact quite limited in our understanding.

If you accept your own limitedness and fallibility (or do you?), why do you keep looking for proofs? Or do you still think that absolute certainty is somehow accessible to you?

[Maverick]

tamara, don't let my request for proof in the Gordifnishette debate confuse you. The only reason why I asked for proof of Gordifnishette's non-existence is because I wanted to show, through example, that asking for proof of a negative is irrational. You already seem to understand the point I was making to other people in that debate.

tamara, from There are no global proofs

Asking theists for proof is irrational, IMO (just as irrational as theists asking atheists for disproof). (emphasis mine)

Since you haven't asked any of the atheists on this board for proof of a negative, the point of this thread isn't directed at you. So don't imply that I am demanding proof/disproof of anything just because I did so in the Gordifnishette debate. I made references to proof in that debate to make a different point.

tamara

I hope you make up your mind soon. It's hard to go on with anything if you keep on about proofs. They exist no more than Gordifnishette. How about using the word evidence instead?

Remember what I stated in another thread:

Maverick, from There are no global proofs

In debate with theists, I usually don't ask for proof of a god's existence. Instead, I ask for evidence. I am under the impression that proof implies absolute knowledge about something whereas evidence does not make such an implication.

tamara

I thought I did a pretty good job on the other board! Since people piled on top of me yelling, then kicking me out, is a fair indication I had something going...

New board, new opportunity. I hope you won't judge every atheist message board based on your experience with one of them. Besides, I didn't have an opportunity to read your posts at the other message board (and most of this board's members do not post at the board you came here from).

tamara

Anyways, I have my hands full at the moment with the evidence issue...

Take one thing at a time. I'll wait if I have to.

tamara

If you accept your own limitedness and fallibility (or do you?), why do you keep looking for proofs? Or do you still think that absolute certainty is somehow accessible to you?

I accept my own fallibility and limitedness also. And I highly doubt that absolute certainty is possible. However, I cannot be absolutely certain that absolute certainty is not accessible to us either, can I?

[tamara]

Touche! ;D

Quite. Well, it looks like we are in synch after all.
I'll be back Tue with some evidence.... I hope!

Happy new year, all!

[pieisgood]

Are we to assume that Gordifnishette only has power if people have faith in him? I think I have a proof that he doesn't if that's true (posted in the "what's in a rainbow" thread)

[Maverick]

tamara

Quite. Well, it looks like we are in synch after all.
I'll be back Tue with some evidence.... I hope!

Well then, tamara, let me add to one of my previous statements. New board, new year, new opportunity.

Happy new year to you too tamara! I look forward to continuing our discussion next year.

pieisgood

Are we to assume that Gordifnishette only has power if people have faith in him?

No, don't assume that. Gordifnishette has power regardless of whether people believe in him or not.

[pieisgood]

Tell me, Tamara, if God does have the power to influence our lives, why doesn't he/she/it make us all believe in him and have us all living in Utopia?

[tamara]

Why? Would you want a God that makes us do stuff, like some cosmic dictator? Not a utopia in my world...

[zoul]

Posted by: tamara Posted on: 01/04/2004 at 19:49:53
Why? Would you want a God that makes us do stuff, like some cosmic dictator? Not a utopia in my world...
why not, we would not have any knowledge if god had decided thats the way we should be and therefore we would not know any differnt life style would we ?

[coolguy]

tamara said:

It's just my summation of my belief. Whatever I believe, is predicated on fallibilism, which means I accept that I may be wrong. About anything. That's a given.

Omniscience is required for non-fallibilist knowledge.

Thanks for defining your made-up word, but no. Omniscience is not required for fault-free knowledge. Omniscience is required for complete knowledge (duh) but it's not a prerequisite for incomplete, yet correct in as far as it is complete, knowledge.

Your knowledge is what you Know to be true.
Your beliefs are what you believe to be true.

"Scio" is the Latin word meaning "I know" which we base our word "science" on.

Science is defined as:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
(among others)

Science or knowledge in the sense of "scientific knowledge" is never an assumption, or suspicion or something that is Possibly erroneous in any way, it's not a current guess that remains to be proven, but a former guess that has been proven as fact... it is fact, truth. It is truth that is verified and can not be erroneous and is indeed infallible.

The Latin word "verus" means truth... the word "verify" which is derived from it means:
2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of
(among others)

In other words, a truth is a fact of reality. Your claim is that I am impotent to accurately establish or discover facts of reality because I am not omniscient... that I can not Know a single truth because I do not know all truths. Pardon me, but that's idiotic. It IS possible to verify facts of reality, without knowing all the facts of reality. I can verify the fact of reality that I exist using my senses, and can verify many more things with them.

On the other hand, my assumption that you are a human being that I am conversing with is only an assumption that has not been verified by me... so that is not a part of my knowledge, but a part of my beliefs. It is possible, however unlikely, that you are a cat that types well, or an alien, or God, so for me to assume that you are a human is at best a very safe assumption (a belief), but not a confirmed (by me) fact of reality. My beliefs are susceptible to being erroneous, unlike my knowledge, for the very reason that they aren't verified, no matter how obvious or safe the assumption may seem.

To classify suspicions, beliefs, assumptions, theories, hypotheses, etc with knowledge, is to regard unverified ideas in the same manner that you regard verified truth, which is a mistaken way to regard these two entirely different things. Basically taking apples (confirmed facts, truths) and mixing them with oranges (whether possible, probable, or improbable, yet always unconfirmed ideas) and saying their all oranges.... and that because they are all oranges, apples (known truths) can't exist.

BTW, I do not agree that global proofs do not exist.

And absolute certainty is accessible to me. I don't know about you, but I am absolutely certain that I exist. I am absolutely certain that I am looking at a monitor right now and typing on a keyboard and that those two objects exist. To say absolute certainty does not or can not exist is pure nincompoopery, just as saying with absolute certainty that something that is completely unevidenced does exist is pure nincompoopery, too.

This whole thing is funny, because the word Know essentially means "know with absolute certainty" - if you don't know something with absolute certainty, then it is not knowledge, it is not proven fact, it is not truth, it is not something you Know but just a guess, whether a far-out guess or a very well educated guess. Absolute certainty is the one and only thing which differentiates guesses from knowledge.