Operating System Concepts by Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne is a classic OS textbook. Andrew Tanenbaum has some OS books too. I really liked his OS Design and Implementation book but I’m pretty sure that one is super outdated by now. I have not read his newer one but it is called Modern Operating Systems iirc.

Given that music boxes are very very old it is plausible that beethoven could have made a remark sharing his opinion on this exact issue. I don’t mean to agree/disagree with your point, I just find that kind of interesting.

You’re getting downvoted but you are right. Stuff like this is a super cool example of exactly the type of thing you are talking about imo.

There’s a lot of AI generated art that sucks. But that does not imply that in skilled hands an artist can’t use those tools in creative/interesting ways.

Arguably a lot of these tools are designed specifically to reduce the effort a human has to put in to create the art they want to make too.

I don’t see the acorn criminal around anywhere? I heard they haven’t even found the body.

Have you studied philosophy of religion? Sounds a lot like you haven’t. Maybe reading up on it will help you? You can fix your reading comprehension and also learn not to say the dumbest shit possible on topics of religion. It’s really a win-win for you.

Sorry for getting your panties in a twist over paraphrasing your totally irrelevant point. Please understand, I don’t give a shit about what you think you can prove or disprove.

Any supernatural phenomenon, upon rigorous delineation, becomes provably false

Great point, one of the MAJOR challenges with arguments about whether a god does or does not exist is that the whole notion of a god is incredibly vague and not “rigorously delineated” in a general sense. Literally any introductory course in philosophy of religion would point this out.

The lack of reading comprehension here is definitely on your end.

Me (sans-snarkyness) in the original comment you replied to: “Hey, the field of philosophy where this stuff is studied is called philosophy of religion. Proofs for and against the existence of a god have been critiqued to shit there. You should read about it.”

You: “Oh yeah! Well I can disprove any god you like.”

Congrats? Do you want a gold star or something?

Go study philosophy of religion. These kinds of proofs and disproofs are part of that field along with their critiques. That’s the point I’m making in the comment you originally replied to. Nothing about my point is subjective.

I’m “oh-so-focused” on that because you’re “oh-so-focused” on telling me about “empirical investigations” that disprove the existence of gods, which have literally nothing at all to do with my point.

How do you know my point is subjective if you do not understand my point in the first place?

I never said there was prove god doesn’t exist. And like I said, there doesn’t need to be as long as there is no documented sign whatsoever that points towards god actually existing.

You also said: “A nonexistent almighty being”. Did you mean no gods exist, or did you mean all the gods people claim to exist so far have been debunked?

More importantly, for the claim “no god exists” specifically, I disagree that no proof is required in general. There needs to be an actual proof as much as there needs to be a proof of the negation, that “a god exists”, for either to be worth accepting. If neither can be proved, why commit to believing the truth of either?

Additionally, disproving particular examples doesn’t prove the general rule. Having no documented sign pointing to the existence of a god does not confirm the absence of a god anymore than having no documented signs of a gas leak in your home confirms the absence of a gas leak in your home. Perhaps the detector you are using is broken, perhaps the type of gas leaking in your home is not detectable by your detector.

It would also be incredibly hard to design any kind of empirical test to confirm or disconfirm the existence of gods in general (not just the christian flavored ones).

It seems like you should understand my point/position before you reply to me if you want this conversation to be productive? Why is understanding those things irrelevant to you?

Do you think I believe in a god?

Edit: Bonus question, do you think I’m claiming a god exists?

What do you mean?

Why is it silly that the claim originally presented should have to present evidence first? The counter-claim only has zero burden of proof so long as the original claim has failed to give any proof of their own.

That’s not what I’m claiming. I’m saying the claim AND counter-claim should provide evidence/proof before either one is accepted. Blindly believing not B because you can’t prove B is just as bad in my opinion as believing B itself with no proof.

You wouldn’t have to present an argument yet, at that stage. I’d think you’re really dumb for needing something like that proven to you, but the initial burden of proof would still be on me. However, when I quickly and easily provide proof that 2 + 2 does equal 4, THEN the burden of proof falls to you to prove your counter-claim.

A lack of evidence or proof for some claim B is not sufficient proof for not B. It doesn’t really matter what claim we assign to B here.

For example, you might not have evidence/proof that it will rain today (i.e. B is the statement “it will rain today”), that doesn’t give you sufficient evidence/proof to now claim that it will not rain today. You just don’t know either way.

This ties into the part you absolutely agreed with. The word “God” as it is defined now would not exist without the original unproven claims that God. Even if you’re not responding “God doesn’t exist” directly to someone who said “God exists”, you are if nothing else still responding to the original millennia old claim that they do exist. For that reason, it is always a counter-claim.

If I say god doesn’t exist to you I feel like I’m making a true or false factual claim to YOU rather than to a bunch of old dead people or some greater historical/cultural context. The history of the word/definition might be relevant for deciding what the word means, but the claim is aimed at YOU. The actual truth status of the claim (even if we call it a counter-claim) that I might be making is either true or false (assuming we subscribe to bivalence like that) regardless of the history or culture that lead us to the discussion.

As for what makes counter-claims different from regular claims, it’s simply that the burden of proof lies first with the original claim. A counter-claim has no responsibility to prove their claim until such time as the original claim presents evidence supporting itself

It seems like a silly double standard for only one side to have a burden to prove their claim, but the other gets to claim the negation is true with no burden of proof.

For example, if you say “2+2 is 4” and my response is “NO IT IS NOT. IT IS 3! I REFUSE TO PROVE IT THOUGH”, not only will I be wrong in a classical arithmetic sense but I have presented no argument for why you ought to believe my new counter claim to your original claim. It would make no sense to believe me without more info in such a case.

The problem with that is I at least in theory could have looked up the tax code, remembered it, and then told you it correctly. Sure, I could have lied or remembered wrong, but it was 100% within my capacity to give you the accurate information, and even show you where I got the information from. With a claim about God’s existence, that’s impossible for either side of the debate as far as we know, and since the original claim was “God exists”, that side is, possibly forever, stuck holding the burden of proof.

The fact that you can look up tax code is not really a problem for my hypothetical example. It is not particularly hard to come up with hypotheticals where you just can’t easily obtain the answer. We could rephrase the context, perhaps we are stranded on a desert island? We could rephrase the question, perhaps it is about what some obscure historical figure had in their pockets on the day they died?

To be clear, I’m not trying to argue for or against the existence of god. My issue is that there should be a burden of proof for the CLAIMS “god exists” and “god does not exist” if somebody is claiming either is true. I don’t think there’s any kind of burden for believing some random claim without proof, but I think it’s silly to commit to the negation of a claim without proof unless you have a reason to believe the negation. You can always just not commit and say you don’t know in such a case, rather than believing the claim or its negation.

It doesn’t. But, “God doesn’t exist” is not a claim, it is a counter-claim to the claim “God exists”.

I’d agree that at least sometimes it is a counter claim, but I don’t agree that counter claims aren’t claims themselves. The wording “counter claim” seems to me to indicate that “counter claims” are just claims of a particular type?

“God doesn’t exist” is surely a statement right? If I tell you “god doesn’t exist” (in response or not to something you’ve said), this feels like I am claiming the statement “god doesn’t exist” is true.

The very concept of a higher power didn’t even exist until people started claiming without evidence that it did exist, and it’s been many branching games of telephone of that original unproven claim since then that has resulted in basically every major religion.

I absolutely agree with you on this point.

The counter-claim of “God doesn’t exist” needs no proof beause it is countering a claim that also has no proof. If and when the original multiple millenium old claim of “God exists” actually has some proof to back it up, then the counter-claim would need to either have actual proof as well to support it, or debunk the “evidence” if possible. But again, the original claim is literally thousands of years old and still has absolute bupkis to prove it, so… I’m not too worried.

I don’t think we need proof to reject a claim like “god exists”. There’s no real good evidence for it and all attempts at proofs of this in the history of the philosophy of religion have been analyzed and critiqued to death in some pretty convincing ways.

But, there is to me a difference between rejecting the truth of a claim vs excepting the truth of its denial. So, for example if you tell me tax code says X, that is not a proof of what tax code says. It would make sense for me to not outright believe you (since we are strangers), but you could be telling the truth, so it seems equally silly for me to immediately jump to believing tax code doesn’t say X too.

My issue here is with what I perceive as bad argumentation, double standards and general ignorance to the field of study where these sorts of questions are applicable on the part of the person I am replying to.

Edit: I want to be clear that I’m not saying you are doing that. I am referring to the other people I have been replying to.

No it doesn’t go both ways.

If something exists it should be easy to prove. There should be some form of sign of it.

This is absolutely not true. Things can exist without being accessible to you directly in a manner that makes it easy to prove their existence.

On the other hand it is hard to disprove the existence of anything at all. How do we know there is not some teapot in outer space?

Proving non-existence is not always hard. If we were arguing about the food in your fridge and I were claiming you had food in your fridge when you did not you could easily prove me wrong by just showing me the contents of your fridge.

More importantly, why does the hardness of doing a thing give you special status to make claims without proof? Seems like you are artificially constructing rules here solely because they benefit your position.

We can’t. But that is no reason to believe there is one.

The universe is massive. There are teapots here. Why is it not plausible to believe some other alien race would not also construct some kind of teapot? Also, consider the fact that all teapots here on earth are literally teapots in “outerspace” in some sense.

If you are claiming something doesn’t exist you should prove it. Why should I take your argument seriously without proof? You see how this goes both ways?