Axioms, 'validity' and honest examinations

[Zylstra]

Nothing that does not exist can act or influene

Can this axiom ever be falsified? What means can be used to test that which does not exist for the ability (not tendency or recorded instance, but possibility) to act or influence? This axiom seems to imply that anything which cannot be observed as acting or influencing (that which is undetectable or, more accurately, which has not been detected) does not exist. Indeed, we exclude from our models that which we have no evidence off (observation of the thing or its effect or influence)- hence the rejection of deity, atoms (in the past), dualism, tachyons...

If this axiom is unfalsifiable, then no naturalistic/materialistic system is truly any different from any theistic system which rejects that particular axiom and accepts accepts as an axiom that 'Nothing within the physical universe can directly perceive anything outside of that universe' (hence God would be undetectable unless god is able to influence this universe and chooses to do so; lack-of-evidence ceases to be a valid reason for the exclusion of God from any model of the universe being construed)

I've gotten some interesting responses over at ATT, with people getting quite upset when the most fundamental aspects of their beliefs are challenged...


What say you of LoR?

 

[borrofburi]

Axioms can't be falsified... that's why they're axioms...

I think a better question is, is there any set of axioms where this statement is false? I don't think there are, excepting that we take this statement as false as an axiom...

However I think you *may* be committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent: "this does not seem to act or influence, therefore it does not exist".

 

[Marcus]

It depends on what you mean by "exist", and what you deem to be the thing influencing or causing something. For instance, any number of fictional characters inspire people to do things. Have those characters actually done the influencing? Do they exist?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

As borrofburi has pointed out, "axiom" isn't the right term here 'cause those are assumed by definition.

The supposition "Nothing that does not exist can act or influence" cannot be falsified because our working definition of "exist" is "anything that can act or influence."

However I disagree with your conclusion that this makes it equivalent to the theistic supposition. I'm guessing that your point is that since they're both unfalsifiable, they both must be equivalent but I don't think so. The real question is how useful are these ideas?

Theists believe in modelling the universe based on things that cannot act or influence. For now, we'll ignore how they're supposed to have known about these non-acting, non-influential things. Of course, it must be said that they also believe in modelling the universe based on acting and influential things.

Science just models the universe on things that act or influence. So what scientists believe is a strict subset of what theists believe. This makes science simpler and easier to understand than what theists believe 'cause there's less to work with. However, because the other stuff that theists believe cannot act or influence, their inclusion to the model cannot be of any more practical use than what scientists believe. So, scientific models are just as powerful but simpler than theistic models. This is equivalent to simply saying that scientific models are more powerful than theistic ones since they can, with a model that's just as complex as the theistic one, describe more of what actually acts or influences.

Of course this only scratches the surface and deals with a very particular sort of theist: the deists. Full blown religious followers believe that their deity actually does act and influence and religion tends to make believers believe in things that are actively false. YEC is the epitome of such phenomena...

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

It depends on what you mean by "exist", and what you deem to be the thing influencing or causing something. For instance, any number of fictional characters inspire people to do things. Have those characters actually done the influencing? Do they exist?

Of course not. Fictional characters don't exist and thus don't influence anything. It is the belief in such characters that exists and thus can influence the behavior of the believers...

 

[Zylstra]

I'm guessing that your point is that since they're both unfalsifiable, they both must be equivalent but I don't think so. The real question is how useful are these ideas?[/quote]
(emphasis added)

That's the very question (indeed the only question, really, aside from 'which is simplest and makes thing easier for me') that positivism asks.

Of course this only scratches the surface and deals with a very particular sort of theist: the deists. Full blown religious followers believe that their deity actually does act and influence and religion tends to make believers believe in things that are actively false. YEC is the epitome of such phenomena...

Can you prove the earth isn't only 6000 years old? Or that is wasn't made last Tuesday? Do you know these things are actively false? Remember the fundamental question in positivism: Which model is more useful to us?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

That's the very question (indeed the only question, really, aside from 'which is simplest and makes thing easier for me') that positivism asks.

Of course this only scratches the surface and deals with a very particular sort of theist: the deists. Full blown religious followers believe that their deity actually does act and influence and religion tends to make believers believe in things that are actively false. YEC is the epitome of such phenomena...

Can you prove the earth isn't only 6000 years old? Or that is wasn't made last Tuesday? Do you know these things are actively false? Remember the fundamental question in positivism: Which model is more useful to us?

It depends on what you mean by "useful." For some, it may be more useful to believe in a lie if it comforts them, even if it doesn't help them build a car or a computer. This may help explain why some believe in what most on this forum would consider unbelievable.

I can show that a belief in a 6000 year old Earth is inconsistent with everything else we know about the Universe. You can either accept that it's older than that or complicate your beliefs even further...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What say you of LoR?

I would ask you if you "believe" that A=A, if you can falsify that axiom, and if that "belief" would make you just like a theist?

 

[Zylstra]

What say you of LoR?

I would ask you ... if you can falsify that axiom

That's kinda the point.... it's ultimately nothing more than an appeal to ignorance.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That's kinda the point.... it's ultimately nothing more than an appeal to ignorance.

No it isn't. Why didn't you answer my question? An appeal to axiom isn't the same as an appeal to ignorance. Falsifiability is useful in science, but not necessarily applicable in logic, which means that you're comparing apples and oranges. The interesting thing about logical absolutes is that even apologists accept them as a given, and claim that even "God" can't violate them, because they are fundamental truths that are beyond falsification.

I think that you're mistaking axioms and assumptions. Assuming you mean assumptions, I'm happy to admit that I make a few out of necessity. My assumptions don't make me just like a theist, any more than having a drink makes you an alcoholic. There are degrees of assumptions, from well-founded and useful assumptions, to assumptions that are actively dangerous. It is illogical of you to lump all things together in the way you seem to be doing.

 

[Zylstra]

The axiom in question is an assumption, yes?

It is an appeal to ignorance because it's assumed that non-existent things cannot exist for no reason other that utility and noone's seen it yet/one can't understand how it would work

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The axiom in question is an assumption, yes?

It is an appeal to ignorance because it's assumed that non-existent things cannot exist for no reason other that utility and noone's seen it yet/one can't understand how it would work

Not at all, and not even close. It isn't an "assumption" that non-existent things cannot exist, it is part of the definition of "non-existent."

People didn't get upset with you because you're challenging their beliefs, but because you seem to be intentionally refusing to understand... trolling, in other words. If something is "nonexistent" then it doesn't exist. That's not an assumption, that's a fact based on the definition. If something "can act or influence" then it cannot be said to not exist, also by definition.

That's like saying that rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta could have wings growing out of its back, and saying that they don't have wings is an argument from ignorance. By definition, rhesus monkeys don't have wings. If you found something that has wings but otherwise looks like a rhesus monkey, it might be a real creature but it cannot belong to the species Macaca mulatta.

 

[lookit87]

Nothing that does not exist can act or influene

Can this axiom ever be falsified? What means can be used to test that which does not exist for the ability (not tendency or recorded instance, but possibility) to act or influence? This axiom seems to imply that anything which cannot be observed as acting or influencing (that which is undetectable or, more accurately, which has not been detected) does not exist. Indeed, we exclude from our models that which we have no evidence off (observation of the thing or its effect or influence)- hence the rejection of deity, atoms (in the past), dualism, tachyons...

If this axiom is unfalsifiable, then no naturalistic/materialistic system is truly any different from any theistic system which rejects that particular axiom and accepts accepts as an axiom that 'Nothing within the physical universe can directly perceive anything outside of that universe' (hence God would be undetectable unless god is able to influence this universe and chooses to do so; lack-of-evidence ceases to be a valid reason for the exclusion of God from any model of the universe being construed)

I've gotten some interesting responses over at ATT, with people getting quite upset when the most fundamental aspects of their beliefs are challenged...


What say you of LoR?

When people die they cease to exist, their cessation from life does influence, as far as I know.

 

[Zylstra]

When people die they cease to exist,.

they cease to exist as physical beings. You've yet to address dualist claims.

Of everyone I've challenged to ponder this on several forums, the best response thus far is Joe's rebuttal regarding any act or influence making a thing existent by definition. I'd like to see his definitions of 'existent', 'act', and 'influence' to be thorough, though

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Of everyone I've challenged to ponder this on several forums, the best response thus far is Joe's rebuttal regarding any act or influence making a thing existent by definition. I'd like to see his definitions of 'existent', 'act', and 'influence' to be thorough, though

I don't think I see what you're getting at, because what you seem to be doing is playing semantic games in a way that adds nothing to our knowledge or understanding of the subjects at hand.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

No it isn't. Why didn't you answer my question? An appeal to axiom isn't the same as an appeal to ignorance. Falsifiability is useful in science, but not necessarily applicable in logic, which means that you're comparing apples and oranges. The interesting thing about logical absolutes is that even apologists accept them as a given, and claim that even "God" can't violate them, because they are fundamental truths that are beyond falsification.

The apologists I speak to (in person) do argue that even logic is mutable by God. This makes it rather difficult to have meaningful conversations with them. They'll say things like "I think our understanding of logic is rather limited," to which I'm forced to reply "I agree. Your knowledge of logic is rather limited..."

 

[encoctmebreu]

That is not an axiom. That's a definition.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That is not an axiom. That's a definition.

That's sort of what axioms are, depending on the usage.

Zylstra has sort of been troll-ish since the first time he posted here under a different screen name. When he got to the edge of a ban, he changed names and mostly cleaned up his act. He still tends towards troll-like behavior, and I think this thread is an example of it.

 

[Zylstra]

The only troll here is Joe, who had to get told by the mods to grow up not long ago

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The only troll here is Joe, who had to get told by the mods to grow up not long ago

Yet, I see that you are incapable, AGAIN, of defending the nonsensical position you have taken up, and resort to insult to cover up the fact.

So, answer the criticisms of your foolish position... or don't. Either way.