Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is believing in magic terrible?

Page 3 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

17 Jan 2012, 4:26 pm

JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..


Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.


If you can think about it, does it exist?


As long as you can provide conclusive evidence.


It doesn't exist without evidence, or as far as we know it doesn't?


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Jan 2012, 4:31 pm

snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..


Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.


If you can think about it, does it exist?


As long as you can provide conclusive evidence.


It doesn't exist without evidence, or as far as we know it doesn't?


No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

17 Jan 2012, 4:34 pm

JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..


Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.


If you can think about it, does it exist?


As long as you can provide conclusive evidence.


It doesn't exist without evidence, or as far as we know it doesn't?


No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.


So how do you explain something that suddenly exists when there is no evidence for it?


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Jan 2012, 4:49 pm

snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..


Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.


If you can think about it, does it exist?


As long as you can provide conclusive evidence.


It doesn't exist without evidence, or as far as we know it doesn't?


No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.


So how do you explain something that suddenly exists when there is no evidence for it?


How would you know something suddenly exists if there is no evidence for it?



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

17 Jan 2012, 4:52 pm

I don't really accept Russell's Teapot as a valid argument for rejecting the possibility of things like God, ET, and bigfoot because imo the fact there are legends about all three of those things alone makes them more likely than a human artifact floating around in space randomly.

Of course, the people who make Ancient Aliens probably wouldn't have too hard a time believing in a teapot floating in space. :)



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Jan 2012, 5:53 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
I don't really accept Russell's Teapot as a valid argument for rejecting the possibility of things like God, ET, and bigfoot because imo the fact there are legends about all three of those things alone makes them more likely than a human artifact floating around in space randomly.

Of course, the people who make Ancient Aliens probably wouldn't have too hard a time believing in a teapot floating in space. :)



Translation:

"Somebody made up a story about it; therefore it has to be true."



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

17 Jan 2012, 5:58 pm

JWC wrote:

No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.


So how do you explain something that suddenly exists when there is no evidence for it?[/quote]

How would you know something suddenly exists if there is no evidence for it?[/quote]

If you think that evidence is needed to prove something existed, think of all the things that didn't until the past few millennia. I doubt it just popped out of nowhere.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Jan 2012, 6:02 pm

snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:

No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.


So how do you explain something that suddenly exists when there is no evidence for it?


How would you know something suddenly exists if there is no evidence for it?[/quote]

If you think that evidence is needed to prove something existed, think of all the things that didn't until the past few millennia. I doubt it just popped out of nowhere.[/quote]

It doesn't matter how it came to be. The moment something comes into existence there is evidence of it's existence, even if that evidence goes unrecognized.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

17 Jan 2012, 6:05 pm

Only if it's of the Paul Daniels variety.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Jan 2012, 6:08 pm

JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..
Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.
If you can think about it, does it exist?

Unless it exists already, then not outside of your mind.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Jan 2012, 6:09 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
Fnord wrote:
a. There is no valid empirical evidence to support the claim that magic exists.
b. Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt.
: : It is reasonable to doubt any claim for the existence of magic.
Russell's Teapot basically?

Syllogistic form, basically. Fnord's Logic, always.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Jan 2012, 6:11 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
I don't really accept Russell's Teapot as a valid argument for rejecting the possibility of things like God, ET, and bigfoot because imo the fact there are legends about all three of those things alone makes them more likely than a human artifact floating around in space randomly.

Acceptance, or lack thereof - either of which is subjective opinion - prove nothing.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

17 Jan 2012, 6:16 pm

JWC wrote:

It doesn't matter how it came to be. The moment something comes into existence there is evidence of it's existence, even if that evidence goes unrecognized.


I think so, but you said if you can't provide conclusive evidence, it can't exist. If it goes unrecognized, you can't provide it.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Jan 2012, 6:22 pm

snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:

It doesn't matter how it came to be. The moment something comes into existence there is evidence of it's existence, even if that evidence goes unrecognized.


I think so, but you said if you can't provide conclusive evidence, it can't exist. If it goes unrecognized, you can't provide it.


That's not what I meant. Clarification: Something cannot exist without there being some evidence of it somewhere. Proof of that existence requires conclusive evidence.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Jan 2012, 6:29 pm

JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
It doesn't matter how it came to be. The moment something comes into existence there is evidence of it's existence, even if that evidence goes unrecognized.
I think so, but you said if you can't provide conclusive evidence, it can't exist. If it goes unrecognized, you can't provide it.
That's not what I meant. Clarification: Something cannot exist without there being some evidence of it somewhere. Proof of that existence requires conclusive evidence.

And lack of such proof is sufficient justification to doubt any claims that the "something" exists.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Jan 2012, 6:30 pm

^^^^^what he said.