Evidence for God from Science

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:So are you saying that you have proven: "You can't prove a negative"

I am saying that is is the argument from ignorance, a well-known logical fallacy.

You seem to want to change the subject from the rather inconvenient RLN. I can't say I blame you!

I'm not changing the subject, you could not get past your own question-begging and provide proof for your assertions around the RLN, so it was getting repetitive, just like your refusal to answer a straight question about your proof that I have now asked multiple times.

August wrote:I'm not changing the subject, you could not get past your own question-begging and provide proof for your assertions around the RLN, so it was getting repetitive, just like your refusal to answer a straight question about your proof that I have now asked multiple times.

Are you claiming that the argument from ignorance is incorrect? Is your reasoning really that weak?

For the purposes of the non-participating audience, let me clarify lest our friend Sceptic continue to refuse to answer a straight question.

The argument from ignorance is a fallacious appeal for a proposition p or ~p based on a lack of evidence for or against it. To equate that with a proof for "You cannot prove a negative" simply does not apply. For the argument from ignorance to hold true in this case, there can be no possibility to ever non-fallaciously prove ~p, which is of course just silly.

That argument implicitly takes this form:

Major Premise: Negatives cannot be proven
Minor Premise: The subject we are discussing is a negative
Conclusion: The subject we are discussing cannot be proven.

If the major premise in the argument above does not hold up, then the argument fails. There are many examples of the major premise failing, so the argument simply does not hold up. Even in formal logic does the argument not hold up...if any of the premises in an argument contain a negative, then the conclusion is also negative.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:I'm not changing the subject, you could not get past your own question-begging and provide proof for your assertions around the RLN, so it was getting repetitive, just like your refusal to answer a straight question about your proof that I have now asked multiple times.

Are you claiming that the argument from ignorance is incorrect? Is your reasoning really that weak?

I am saying that the argument from ignorance does not apply to your statement. And we are still waiting for your formal proof.

You seem to have made a number of baseless assertions, followed by a non-sequitur conclusion.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve which innervates the larynx. But, instead of branching off in the neck and travelling directly to the larynx, it follows a long, looping course down the neck into the thorax, before doubling back on itself to ascend back up the neck to the larynx. This circuitous route is why it's called "recurrent".

I'm not sure why you brought this up as its completely irrelevant to my argument. Either way, I will leave you in the capable hands of August, Zoegirl and Byblos.

August wrote: Major Premise: Negatives cannot be proven

There are many examples of the major premise failing

Give one (outside of mathematics).

godslanguage wrote:I'm not sure why you brought this up as its completely irrelevant to my argument. Either way, I will leave you in the capable hands of August, Zoegirl and Byblos.

You seemed to be suggesting that biological morphology shows evidence of a designer. It doesn't.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote: Major Premise: Negatives cannot be proven

There are many examples of the major premise failing

Give one (outside of mathematics).

You can apply a syllogism with a negative premise to many situations. There are ten forms of syllogisms that can lead to a negative conclusion.

But ok, how many examples do you want?

There is no flamingo in my pocket right now. Proof: I opened my pocket and looked, it is empty.

We are still waiting for your formal proof, by the way.

August wrote:
You can apply a syllogism with a negative premise to many situations. There are ten forms of syllogisms that can lead to a negative conclusion.

But ok, how many examples do you want?

There is no flamingo in my pocket right now. Proof: I opened my pocket and looked, it is empty.

We are still waiting for your formal proof, by the way.

That example doesn't exclude an invisible flamingo, hence it is not valid.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:
You can apply a syllogism with a negative premise to many situations. There are ten forms of syllogisms that can lead to a negative conclusion.

But ok, how many examples do you want?

There is no flamingo in my pocket right now. Proof: I opened my pocket and looked, it is empty.

We are still waiting for your formal proof, by the way.

That example doesn't exclude an invisible flamingo, hence it is not valid.

Oh please.

August wrote:Oh please.

Please what?

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:Oh please.

Please what?

Are you appealing to invisible flamingo's? Really?

So why don't you prove there is an invisible flamingo in my pocket. I contend there is not.

August wrote:So why don't you prove there is an invisible flamingo in my pocket. I contend there is not.

The whole point is, you can't prove that there isn't. You might think that there isn't, and I might even agree. This is the argument from ignorance.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:So why don't you prove there is an invisible flamingo in my pocket. I contend there is not.

The whole point is, you can't prove that there isn't. You might think that there isn't, and I might even agree. This is the argument from ignorance.

No, I have proven that there isn't. I put my hand in there and I felt.

But since you want to continue, here is another example:

No camera can record it's own construction.

Like I said, there are many.

So, for the umpteenth time, is it your contention that you have conclusively proven that "You cannot prove a negative"?

August wrote:No, I have proven that there isn't. I put my hand in there and I felt.

But since you want to continue, here is another example:

No camera can record it's own construction.

Like I said, there are many.

So, for the umpteenth time, is it your contention that you have conclusively proven that "You cannot prove a negative"?

That doesn't constitute proof, either. You might have missed the flamingo, perhaps it is very small.

Prove that no camera can record it's own construction.