A Spider in the Room

[Persephone]

Last semester I took a class in Logic. One day we wrote a paper on a problem our Professor presented in class. My Professor is an atheist, but he wanted to see how we could answer this problem, presented originally by Professor Peter Kreeft, author of The Best Things in Life. I got an A+ on my paper, but I would like to see what other people have to say about this problem.

"Imagine that you are sitting in a room with a friend. Your friend states his hypotheses, that there are no spiders in the room. You state the opposing theory. In order to prove your theories, you both begin to look for a spider. Your job is potentially easier, because you only have to search until you find one. Your friend has to search until he doesn't find one. In other words he must be omnipotent in regard to the entities within the room, whereas you only have to be omnipotent if there is no spider in the room."

"Now, imagine that the room is the universe, and the spider is God. You must search until you find God; your friend must search until he does not. Thus, in danger of being called facetious, I say that your friend, being omnipotent, is the very god he is looking for."

Edited May 9, 2008 by Persephone

[JMeganSnow]

It's very facetious. A spider is a finite entity with a clear definition, thus it is possible to be sure whether there is or is not a spider in a given room without becoming "omnipotent" (which should really be "omniscient", but whatever).

Since it's impossible to pin any theist down regarding the definition of God or even how you would know when you've found one, the position is treated as arbitrary, which it is.

[Nyronus]

Technically, you don't have to search every end of the universe to disprove God, just as you do not have to disprove the spider, you simply have to show that the universe reacts different than one in which a God would exist. The easiest way would be the blaspheme and not be harmed. You could also demonstrate historical inconsistencies in the behavior of God. Like way he thrashed a bunch of gays in Sodom, but then let the common cold take out Stalin after the worst of his damage had been done. While this does not prove God's nonexistence, it does: A) Disprove the presence of God, or Shows that God is an altogether different character than he's made out to be, which effectively disproves the presence of the God that they are looking for.

How does this apply to the spider? Simply show that it is more than likely or impossible that a spider exists in the room with you, and you don't have to search.

[Persephone]

Correction: The original argument read omniscient, spellcheck changed it for me.

Once again Windows Vista demonstrates it's disdain for man.

[Clawg]

Once again Windows Vista demonstrates it's disdain for man.

Just like cars or any other tool if you don't know how to use them properly

"Imagine that you are sitting in a room with a friend. Your friend states his hypotheses, that there are no spiders in the room. You state the opposing theory. In order to prove your theories, you both begin to look for a spider. Your job is potentially easier, because you only have to search until you find one. Your friend has to search until he doesn't find one. In other words he must be omnipotent in regard to the entities within the room, whereas you only have to be omnipotent if there is no spider in the room."

Why would you even state that there is a spider in the room / a god in the universe in the first place?

"Now, imagine that the room is the universe, and the spider is God. You must search until you find God; your friend must search until he does not. Thus, in danger of being called facetious, I say that your friend, being omnipotent, is the very god he is looking for."

The very premise of your question is that the only source of knowledge is pure sensory data (-> need for omniscience to decide) which leads to the conclusion that nothing is certain, that there are no absolute truths and no logic, which of course leads to a contradiction in your statement.

[y_feldblum]

What did Vista do?

[Greebo]

"Now, imagine that the room is the universe, and the spider is God. You must search until you find God; your friend must search until he does not. Thus, in danger of being called facetious, I say that your friend, being omnipotent, is the very god he is looking for."

The believer in God would reply: God is the room, not a spider.

[D'kian]

Why would you even state that there is a spider in the room / a god in the universe in the first place?

In the case of a spider, you may conclude there is one because you see a spiderweb. As for God, well, what's a good concrete that serves as evidence for a god?

[Clawg]

In the case of a spider, you may conclude there is one because you see a spiderweb. As for God, well, what's a good concrete that serves as evidence for a god?

Well, now that's obvious. It's mary on a toast.

[softwareNerd]

The very premise of your question is that the only source of knowledge is pure sensory data (-> need for omniscience to decide) which leads to the conclusion that nothing is certain, that there are no absolute truths and no logic, which of course leads to a contradiction in your statement.

I don't see how the first part (i.e. assuming knowledge from sensory data) is the problem. Rather, the absence of such data is being given significance. The mistake that the example seems to fall into is that an assertion has some validity if we have no data to assert it. In other words, it gives significance to the absence of data in a situation where we had no reason to expect such data in the first place. i.e. it allows arbitrary to enter into true/false considerations.

I'm not sure this example really even does that, because, by saying: "Your job is potentially easier, because you only have to search until you find one. Your friend has to search until he doesn't find one.", The writer smuggles in an assumption. He assumes that there actually is a spider in the room. If not, the person looking for it will sure not find his job to be easier.

The writer tries to explain what he means, saying: "[spider-denier] must be omniscient in regard to the entities within the room, whereas [spider-believer has] to be omniscient if there is no spider in the room." Even on its own terms -- of two people actually checking entities to see if they are spiders -- this is an unsupported assertion. The spider-denier does not have to know if a particular entity is a cockroach, or a maggot, or a philosophy professor. All he needs to know is that it is not a spider. So, like the spider-believer, all he has to know is what a spider looks like. No special omniscience is required.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The spider-denier does not have to know if a particular entity is a cockroach, or a maggot, or a philosophy professor.

Why don't you come right out and tell us what you really thing about those philosophy professors

Actually, this a classic case of the need for the position that the onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. If someone says that are not any spiders in the room, he has not claimed a positive. It is the spider-affirmer who must prove that his positive assertion is true by showing a spider is in the room.

The God angle is interesting, because it sounds like he who denies the existence of God must prove his position, but no, that isn't true. He who asserts that God does indeed exist (asserting a positive) must be the one to show the facts of His existence. The atheist or denier of God doesn't have to show anything because he is not making a positive assertion.

Regarding perception, if one sees a spider in the room, then there is a spider in the room. I suppose one could claim that it is not really a spider but rather a small plastic spider and not the real deal, but the guy who asserts that it is a spider that he has found must demonstrate that it really is a spider, and not something else. And if he found out is is a plastic toy rather than a real spider, this does not deny the evidence of his own senses. His senses were accurate in seeing the shape et al, he was just originally mistaken in claiming that it was a spider. In other words, it wasn't his senses that were wrong, but his conscious conclusion that it was a spider.

:

:

:

:

:

:/\/00\/\

Edited May 10, 2008 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Persephone]

In the case of a spider, you may conclude there is one because you see a spiderweb. As for God, well, what's a good concrete that serves as evidence for a god?

I put the paper together with a study partner, and the above argument is very close to our first premise, which we turned down. The reason is that a spider web would prove the existence of a spider, but the absence of a spider web would not prove the non-existence of the spider, only show strong evidence for its non-existence.

Assuming that A does not inherently cause B

If A causes B and B exists, A exists

If A causes B and B does not exist, the existence of A is unknown

In Pseudo-Techno-Logic, this means that the absence of proof for an entities' movements does not prove that the entity itself does not exist if the movement is not inherent to the entities' nature (whew). For example, a woman's husband may smoke a pipe. If the woman comes home and does not smell pipe-smoke, that does not mean her husband is not in the house, because her husband does not eternally smoke a pipe (ignoring the fact that a pipe smoker’s house always smells like pipe-smoke). Whether or not a god has a natural motion or force is a question of definition.

Our next point was that of definitions. One can, assumably, define a spider to the point where it can be easily identified. A definition of a god is much harder. We brought this up in class and it was turned down, under the basis that the real purpose of the assignment was to argue against the principle of the fallacy of the universal negative, which is, according to my Professor, naturally impervious to the definition of the entity being looked for. The real point is the absence of omniscients in the person seeking, not the entity being sought. We were free to disagree if we wanted too, and the professor did not tell us that what he claimed was true, or whether or not he believed it. He did say that, if we continued to use the argument of definition, we would have to defeat his argument. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with liberal art colleges, the ideal platonic education gave way to time constraints and the need to keep a good grade. We decided to ignore him.

We finally got an A+ with the same premises as Nyronus, Clawg, and softwareNerd. (All misinterpretations entirely the fault of this author)

Technically, you don't have to search every end of the universe to disprove God...you simply have to show that the universe reacts different than one in which a God would exist.

The very premise of your question is that the only source of knowledge is pure sensory data

Even on its own terms -- of two people actually checking entities to see if they are spiders -- this is an unsupported assertion. The spider-denier does not have to know if a particular entity is a cockroach, or a maggot, or a philosophy professor. All he needs to know is that it is not a spider. So, like the spider-believer, all he has to know is what a spider looks like. No special omniscience is required.

Our paper had three main points

1. Inductive logic is based off of sensory data, but is useful as a means of extrapolation of that data to demonstrate as logical things that cannot be experienced personally

2. Assuming an accurate definition of God (a task of a lifetime in itself) one need only look for “ripples of deity,” movements close to his nature that are always present when he is present (assuming “he” for ease of use)

3. One does not need to be omnipotent about every aspect of every entity, just the identity of the entity. As long as it is not God, it does not need to be further explored

Disagree with me!! I’m begging you!!

As to Vista, it has clearly declared war on me and my writing. It often changes whole sentence meanings because "Auto Correct Grammar" spots an error. No comparison here, but Tom Sawer would never have seen the light of day if Twain was using a Vista system

(Edit: Fixing Generic Stupidity)

Edited May 14, 2008 by Persephone

[SpiralTheorist]

There's an important disanalogy between spiders and Gods. No one, upon being told there was a spider in the room, would question whether that was metaphysically possible. But the entire notion of a God is a package of contradictions, such that even looking for evidence for one is taking the notion far too seriously. The question relies on a very naive understanding of atheism in which the atheist disbelieves in God merely because he hasn't seen evidence of God. In fact, most thoughtful atheists understand that in logic there *cannot* be evidence for God, because the concept is incoherent.

[aequalsa]

There's an important disanalogy between spiders and Gods. No one, upon being told there was a spider in the room, would question whether that was metaphysically possible. But the entire notion of a God is a package of contradictions, such that even looking for evidence for one is taking the notion far too seriously. The question relies on a very naive understanding of atheism in which the atheist disbelieves in God merely because he hasn't seen evidence of God. In fact, most thoughtful atheists understand that in logic there *cannot* be evidence for God, because the concept is incoherent.

...and to elaborate a little further, one part of that package is that god lives outside the confines of the universe(unless the believer is a hippie-then god is everywhere...the room is the spider). The bible then, is their spider web, which never needs to be checked since god doesn't ever come back to it. The particular power of the monotheistic god concept is, and has always been, that it is safely untouchable, outside of our ability to sense or even comprehend it.