So the same result would both completely disprove X and prove X? What you are saying is a hot tangled mess. I suggest that is the source of disagreement.
You’re taking what i said here and misinterpreting it. I said the results of these studies would either prove its true or not. By proving its true the results would have to show reaction from said “organism” and if the results are nothing than we can assume an inanimate and dead universe that isnt an organism. We understand the energy output for something like this would be difficult and we’d be at risk in real life but there are advances in certain fields of science that may allow us to easily test and measure this in a controlled setting.
I’m convinced that is gibberish.
And can you explain or are you simply incapable? Throughout me address this it has seemed that people on the atheist side are worried what me and my colleague are going to attempt and therefore is underminded by statements like “this is Unfalsifiable” but it sounds more like an uncomfortablility with being presented with the possibility of something this complex. Either you can’t come to grips with the complexities of what I’m presenting or you’re scared to. Or maybe you can provide whats really happening because this whole time I’ve been acknowledging that nothing really should be discussed without evidence anyways thats all i originally have been saying is “we’re working on it.”
What really is at issue here is whether you are actually - in theory and in practice - able to prove what you have set out to do. Given that our physical reach into the cosmos in practice is limited to remote sensing (man-made probes have only barely entered interstellar space, in very limited numbers (two), with failing instruments and limited power supply). Thus, all you have are indirect optical and electromagnetical measurements of the environment outside our solar system. Even inside our solar system, we only have very limited in situ measurements of the environment outside our own planet. Any “cosmical organism” would be so vast that you can only hope to sample an infinitesimally small part of it. Also, to disprove something that you hypothesize is outside our current understanding would be futile, it would amount to prove a negative (example: prove to me that pink unicorns don’t exist! You can’t; you can only give arguments in favor of its nonexistence, but not proof).
Hmm i was about to give an argument i usually do for an omnipresent being but realized that doesn’t work for unicorns as they aren’t claimed to be everywhere but to say they were sufficient enough evidence of their nonexistentce would be do you see them now? No? Than they don’t exist and thats enough proof.
Such as?
That is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
The same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
So all it takes is a claim?
A fallacious claim at that.
Your text seems to have missing punctuation, so it is very hard to parse.
I cannot see snow leopards now. So that is, by your own argumentation, enough proof that they don’t exist.
I’m saying that argument only works against a claim of omnipresence as it would mean an omnipresent thing would be literally everywhere in your field of vision. But because its not the a claim of I don’t see it so its not there is enough evidence, assuming the thing in question is a physical, interactable thing.
If god is everywhere (omnipresent) then why don’t i see him everywhere? If god is outside of our universe as some people claim than he can’t be omnipresent by that claim because you’ve made him exist in the gaps of science where we can’t observe which negates the claim god in omnipresent. (This is my usual argument against this form of Christianity)
That’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, to argue that something is true because of the lack of contrary evidence, is irrational, as it uses the aforementioned fallacy.
It makes the claim uncompelling, not least because it is unfalsifiable, but then so is your conclusion, you seem to be both decrying an unfalsifiable argument, and using one?
It’s a weak argument, as it’s conclusion is just as unfalsifiable as the theistic one you’re opposing. I would simply express doubt, and withhold belief, as I would for all unfalsifiable claims, including yours of course.
Or maybe you are full of crap. Guess which option I’m betting on?
1 Like
This must be a windup, yes?