Prove Rational Atheism and win $1000!

[IchorFigure]

Similar to James Randi's psychic challenge, the group this guy represents is ponying up $1000 if someone can prove a rational atheism that solves the problem of induction (kind of a paltry sum for such a task honestly). Someone ring up Dr. Peikoff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-aIsI6EYcA

Apparently if you lose the challenge you go to hell, so that's a downer however.

[EC]

This sounds relatively easy assuming that their judgment process is rational (which I doubt). I think I will check this out and probably give it a shot.

[Jake_Ellison]

I wish they'd accept comments. I would just answer:

"By using the word prove in the title, you are declaring that you like logic, and you are willing to rely on it: so stop making up stuff, rely on logic when you decide whether there's a God too. Logic tells you that you first need proof to accept something and build on it, because you cannot prove a negative, just by the absence of evidence.

There is no evidence of absence, since absence(nothingness) does not leave traces and fingerprints.

So if you choose to reject logic's rule that you need evidence before you assume something to be true, I can't help you any more than I have by telling you about your error. I can't use logical thinking to prove you wrong: The absence of God hasn't left any traces for me to look up and deliver to you."

Edited December 2, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[kainscalia]

Ten thousand dollars and I might consider it. One? puh-leeze!

Edited December 17, 2008 by kainscalia

[Soth]

Don't bother wasting your time with it. This is a cheap scheme to ride on the success of James Randi who held the one million dollar challenge to anyone who proves supernatural ability. The difference is, mr. Randi spend years backing up his challenge, dealing with endless applications by delusional, irrational, lunatuc and/or fraudulent individuals. Mr. Randi had the rules set up clearly. And should an applicant actually were able to demonstrate supernatural abilities in a mutually agreed upon test, Randi would have actually been converted. On the other hand, this religious nutcase group would never change their minds when confronted with facts, because facts do not bother them. They don't believe in god because they concluded god exists rationally. They believe in god because they chose to believe.

It goes without saying that should anyone actually try to formulate a way through which rational atheism can be proven, they would reject it out of hand, or worse, accept the proposition, and once that person proceeded to go through with it they would back out by twisting out of it in some UNRATIONAL manner.

[D'kian]

You can prove certain things can't exist by determinding whether or not they violate natural laws. In the case of God this approach wouldn't work beacsue 1) God is by definition above natural laws, 2) people who believe in God do so out of faith rather than reason, so using reason won't sway them, 3) people who don't understand science think that because scientists ahve been wrong in the past, that means they don't really know anything (not for certain).

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

There is no evidence of absence, since absence(nothingness) does not leave traces and fingerprints.

I recall you saying that there is such a thing (here). I'm a little confused by this. Although many members of this board have said there is, I think that Peikoff said in his podcast that there isn't. Maybe I'm getting it all wrong, but if...for example, you place a book on a carpet floor, and then take it away, it will leave marks, and there you would have evidence of the abscence of the book on the floor, although this is probably not the best example. Is this wrong?

Edited March 29, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Iudicious]

I recall you saying that there is such a thing (here). I'm a little confused by this. Although many members of this board have said there is, I think that Peikoff said in his podcast that there isn't. Maybe I'm getting it all wrong, but if...for example, you place a book on a carpet floor, and then take it away, it will leave marks, and there you would have evidence of the abscence of the book on the floor, although this is probably not the best example. Is this wrong?

When he said that, he meant non-existence. You can't prove the non-existence of something, because proof relies on evidence. What evidence can something that doesn't exist leave?

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

What evidence can something that doesn't exist leave?

A dead body proving the abscense or non-existence of its consciousness?

Edited March 29, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Jake_Ellison]

I recall you saying that there is such a thing (here).

I was wrong about what evidence is, back in 2008 (in this thread). In reality, evidence is whatever fact supports or undermines a hypothesis. For instance, if my hypothesis is that a meteor hit outside my window, the absence of a crater undermines the hypothesis, it is evidence that my hypothesis is false.

As for the phrase I used in your link (The absence of evidence is evidence of absence), that's not a good enough explanation of the whole truth. The phrase "absence of evidence" makes no sense, it is an inappropriate use of those two words (it's what's called a 'misnomer'). Every hypothesis has some kind of evidence for or against it (even one purposefully designed to include supposedly undetectable events or existents, since that in itself proof that the person made things up, there's no way he could've formed the hypothesis by observing reality).

One observation, and the reason why it is so important to understand what evidence is, is that the person deciding on the hypothesis must actually look for the evidence. If you wish to dispute my claim that a crater hit outside my window by closing your eyes and yelling la-la-la, and then say:

"You haven't proved to me that the meteor hit therefor my claim is false." ,

that is called the argument from ignorance fallacy (the claim that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true).

I said understanding what evidence is is important, because if someone were to think that evidence is only "trace of a physical object", the way I seemed to think in 2008 in this thread, then that person cannot prove any ridiculous arbitrary claim wrong, for fear of committing the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Jake_Ellison