A case for religion, and against AA.

[crashtestdummy]

You're missing my point. It isn't circular logic. Many Biblical events/peoples/rulers are real and have been discovered via archaeology (which is science), as with any book that provides a look into history, and while everything isn't verified, that's OK becasue history has been slowly uncovered for the past 100 years or so and will continue to be.

"Circular logic" is a catch-phrase you're obviously repeating, which means you probably don't know much about what's in the Bible or you wouldn't say that.

The city of Troy is real. It is clear that a conflict arose there at the end of Mycenaean era that led to the destruction of the city. Does that mean that we must accept the account in the Illiad that the war was caused by the jealous squabbles of three sibling Goddesses?

 

[Retro Rob]

The city of Troy is real. It is clear that a conflict arose there at the end of Mycenaean era that led to the destruction of the city. Does that mean that we must accept the account in the Illiad that the war was caused by the jealous squabbles of three sibling Goddesses?

Will you please let soulcaugher answer, CTD?

Secondly, just because Jerusalem is real doesn't mean Jesus was the son of God... and I don't recall positing that anyway, bro.

You're putting words clearly into my mouth.

 

[sandorski]

Please, read my reply to him about "circuar logic".

It cannot be circular if we can point to evidence outside of the book.

The "Evidence" of this you give is not evidence of the Claim.

 

[sandorski]

Will you please let soulcaugher answer, CTD?

Secondly, just because Jerusalem is real doesn't mean Jesus was the son of God... and I don't recall positing that anyway, bro.

You're putting words clearly into my mouth.

No. He has a memory of what you have said on this very subject.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, I guess I will call it off...he's taking a long time to say "yes, we can move to PM", or "no we can't".

Doesn't take long to confirm whether or not you are open, especially if you've made it clear you are.

Maybe's he's googling something along the lines of "Common theists arguments in support of the Bible", or something like that.

 

[Retro Rob]

No. He has a memory of what you have said on this very subject.

What, you're gonna shake it for him too?

 

[sandorski]

What, you're gonna shake it for him too?

Shake what?

 

[dphantom]

I agree that it comes down, 100%, to faith. You tossed in two other words that I think the two sides in this discussion disagree on. The first is "proof." The second is "evidence." From the non-religious side, proofs are generally irrefutable. That is, if there is a proof that God exists, and that proof is free of logical fallacies, then, God exists. I'd think that if such a proof existed - one which actually meets the mathematical or scientific standards of proof, then it would be a monumental achievement that all mankind would have read about by now, with possible exceptions such as citizens of North Korea. Any such "proof" therefore amounts to "well, the rocks were too big for technology that we know the Egyptians had, therefore, that proves that aliens..." I.e., the proofs are far from complete and rigorous.

Now, I'll posit that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the universe. By your standard for evidence, everything that you see as evidence for the Christian God is now evidence for the FSM. Likewise, your evidence is evidence in Rangi and Papa of Maori legend, who created all this stuff. Your "evidence" is evidence common to ANY creation myth. And, that's the thing - there are many creation myths, many predating Christianity, that explain how the Universe came to be. I.e., your "evidence" is common to virtually every creation myth. Thus, how can you claim that it lends ANY strength to your side of the argument.

In other words, you have faith. Not evidence.

Indeed, I cannot disagree. In fact, I suspect many religions have a kernel of truth in them. That the creation stories, stories of a great flood and so forth from other ancient legends may be a part of the truth fully revealed first and completely in the Old Testament. But it is my Faith that all the evidence we have for God comes to fullness in what can be referred to as the Christian God.

So yes, I think the atheists and the theists do have a vocabulary problem I have not been particularly successful at agreeing to a common definition of the terms.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I suppose we could try if you would tell me what evidence would look like to prove such a claim.

Do i just show you exhibit A which is a box full of nothing and go "See..no god"?

I find it increasingly comical that through over 1,000 posts not one atheist has attempted to prove there is no God!
Instead they ask us to prove the opposite.....that makes for an interesting discussion!

I have one word to add --- faith

 

[JEDIYoda]

No. He has a memory of what you have said on this very subject.

No he twists and turns words in a vain attempt to change what Rob actually said!

 

[soulcougher73]

You're missing my point. It isn't circular logic. Many Biblical events/peoples/rulers are real and have been discovered via archaeology (which is science), as with any book that provides a look into history, and while everything isn't verified, that's OK becasue history has been slowly uncovered for the past 100 years or so and will continue to be.

"Circular logic" is a catch-phrase you're obviously repeating, which means you probably don't know much about what's in the Bible or you wouldn't say that.



If you're serious, no it won't...and to be sure, we can take this to PM to ensure it won't.

No need to go to PM its a public discussion forum. Im just not interested in discussing it currently anymore. I've had my fill of frustration for the time being on this subject. You and jedi are intellectually dishonest which makes it not worth my time currently.

See post #1109 above for an example.

 

[sandorski]

JediYoda, this is what he said

You're missing my point. It isn't circular logic. Many Biblical events/peoples/rulers are real and have been discovered via archaeology (which is science), as with any book that provides a look into history, and while everything isn't verified, that's OK becasue history has been slowly uncovered for the past 100 years or so and will continue to be.

"Circular logic" is a catch-phrase you're obviously repeating, which means you probably don't know much about what's in the Bible or you wouldn't say that.



If you're serious, no it won't...and to be sure, we can take this to PM to ensure it won't.

Bolded are his "outside sources".

 

[JEDIYoda]

See post #1109 above for an example.

Truth hurts huh?

Doesn`t the Bible say -- John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

[sandorski]

Truth hurts huh?

Doesn`t the Bible say -- John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Faith is not Knowledge

 

[Retro Rob]

No need to go to PM its a public discussion forum. Im just not interested in discussing it currently anymore. I've had my fill of frustration for the time being on this subject. You and jedi are intellectually dishonest which makes it not worth my time currently.

See post #1109 above for an example.

I was giving you every opportunity to make good on your "I'm open" statement, (which, of course, you said nothing about this disclaimer that I was intellectually dishonest) and since you claim to not want this to denigrate into a pissing match, privacy is often the best way to avoid that, and I was willing to move it there to accommodate you.

You then say you are not interested.

Now your final excuse is something jediyoda said in his more recent post?

Let's just say you were never really open and a theist called your bluff and put your lying bullshit on blast.

Talking about dishonest -- how freaking ironic is that....

 

[DrPizza]

I find it increasingly comical that through over 1,000 posts not one atheist has attempted to prove there is no God!
Instead they ask us to prove the opposite.....that makes for an interesting discussion!

I have one word to add --- faith

Since you don't believe in invisible purple unicorns, would you care to attempt to prove that invisible purple unicorns don't exist? CAN you prove that invisible purple unicorns don't exist?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus far, evidence seems to be about nil.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Y'know, be man enough to not parse (again) my posts in an attempt to misrepresent what I am saying.

I didn't misrepresent you in the slightest. You concurred "absolutely" with a self-contradictory statement. Nothing about your statement, in whole or in part, changes that fact.

You are making a career out of this.

If I had a nickel for every one of your absurd, preposterous and plainly ridiculous statements that I pointed out, I'd no longer have need of a career -- I'd retire.

Are you open to considering them?

Are you open to considering them?

Are you open to considering them?

You aren't answering the questions. If you expect me to answer yours, then you must answer mine. Anything less is disingenuous.

It is worth noting that I expect people to believe the things that I say because they are true, and I am willing and able to demonstrate their truth with facts, evidence and sound arguments. It don't need to ask if they are "open to considering them."

Why is that a condition for your expectation? Why isn't the above true for your claims?

Part of being convinced of anything is to open your mind to the possiblity. If you're not willing to that, I cannot help you.

Part of being convincing is having facts, evidence and reason in support of your claims. If you cannot supply those, I cannot help you.

Note the difference between those two pairs of statements -- the first implies a fault that lies with the substance of one's character, whereas the other implies that the fault lies with the substance of one's arguments. In other words, you are committing an ad hominem fallacy, and I am not.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There are a number of proofs for the existence of God.

In my extensive experience with the subject, I can tell you that I have come across precisely zero good "proofs of God." Moreover, I could literally create any greater number of "proofs there is no God." The number of "proofs" is not a measure of the quality of those "proofs."

 

[JEDIYoda]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus far, evidence seems to be about nil.

I totally agree!! On both sides of the fence proof seems to be nil.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

personally a case could be made for closing the thread. It has run it`s course....

 

[ThinClient]

I find it increasingly comical that through over 1,000 posts not one atheist has attempted to prove there is no God!
Instead they ask us to prove the opposite.....that makes for an interesting discussion!

I have one word to add --- faith

I find it increasingly comical that someone who's participating in this 1000 post conversation STILL doesn't understand the concept of evidence and things that disproving god's existence is a rational, reasonable demand.

It's not up to us to disprove it. You can't prove a negative.

It's up to YOU to prove your positive claim that god is real. If you don't prove it, then the claim is bogus.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It's not up to us to disprove it. You can't prove a negative.

so there is a God?

 

[JD50]

First of all, apologies - I noticed I did not sign the mod post above. A post in all caps by a moderator (or admin) that isn't part of the discussion, is generally in bold (and signed). Also, instead of shouting, "stop trolling," perhaps I could have clarified and said, "I know passions are high on this topic from many on both sides. Please do not let that get you to post in a manner that's inconsistent with the stated goals of Discussion Club. -Admin DrPizza


(Now, to post as a regular member,)

I agree that it comes down, 100%, to faith. You tossed in two other words that I think the two sides in this discussion disagree on. The first is "proof." The second is "evidence." From the non-religious side, proofs are generally irrefutable. That is, if there is a proof that God exists, and that proof is free of logical fallacies, then, God exists. I'd think that if such a proof existed - one which actually meets the mathematical or scientific standards of proof, then it would be a monumental achievement that all mankind would have read about by now, with possible exceptions such as citizens of North Korea. Any such "proof" therefore amounts to "well, the rocks were too big for technology that we know the Egyptians had, therefore, that proves that aliens..." I.e., the proofs are far from complete and rigorous.

Now, I'll posit that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the universe. By your standard for evidence, everything that you see as evidence for the Christian God is now evidence for the FSM. Likewise, your evidence is evidence in Rangi and Papa of Maori legend, who created all this stuff. Your "evidence" is evidence common to ANY creation myth. And, that's the thing - there are many creation myths, many predating Christianity, that explain how the Universe came to be. I.e., your "evidence" is common to virtually every creation myth. Thus, how can you claim that it lends ANY strength to your side of the argument.

In other words, you have faith. Not evidence.

:thumbsup:

 

[JEDIYoda]

http://thereforegodexists.com/2012/06/can-one-disconfirm-a-universal-negative/

Can One Disconfirm A Universal Negative?

June 4, 2012 - Uncategorized

Atheists typically circulate talking points which they find on the internet. They are so convinced of the truth of these claims (probably based on the success or lack of opposition to them) that they neglect to really investigate the issue at all.

A good example of this is in their substitution of defending the atheistic worldview. Instead of offering a real reason for believing that God does not exist, they instead offer statements such as, “You cannot prove a universal negative.” Since the statement “God does not exist” is a universal negative, they claim that it is not a provable statement, and that therefore they are not obligated to provide any reasons for believing that God does not exist.

This would not be something that one would find in an academic setting; just in the atheist blogosphere, for the statement, “You cannot prove a universal negative,” is incredibly naïve, and demonstrably false.

Now, this raises the question, “What is a universal negative?” A universal negative is a negation of all aspects of a category of the world. For instance, “No dogs are mean” is a universal negative, because it speaks to the dog category, and rejects a certain aspect of them. They are universally not mean. In contrast, the statement, “All dogs are kind,” is a universal affirmative, because it speaks to the entirety of the dog category, but confirms something about them. Atheists assert that “God does not exist,” is a universal negative, and because one cannot prove or disprove a universal negative, they therefore need not offer any arguments for their position.

Any universal affirmative can be reworded into a universal negative. For instance, “All dogs are kind,” can be reworded as to mean, “No dogs are mean.” If one could not disprove the statement, “No dogs are mean,” It would also follow that one could not disprove the statement, “All dogs are kind.” So if it were the case that a universal negative could not be confirmed or rejected, it would also follow logically that a universal affirmative could not be confirmed or rejected.

If this model were adopted by contemporary scientists, it would be completely destructive of any human progress. For the statement, “We cannot learn infer anything by investigating the natural world,” could not refuted as a consequence of this philosophical rule. This line of thinking, that one cannot confirm or reject a universal negative would actually be completely destructive of science and human advancement. It would usher in an age of severe post-modernism, wherein scholars and academics would be considered enlightened for uttering statements such as “All truth is relative.”

But that does not mean that therefore this perspective is false. One cannot change the truth, simply because they do not like its’ conclusion. So is it the case that we cannot confirm or deny a universal negative? Well, let us simply look at the example that I provided.

“No dogs are mean,” is a universal negative. However, if we find even a single mean dog, it follows that this universal negative has been refuted. Since there are mean dogs, it follows that in fact, this universal negative is refuted. But that entails that it is possible to refute universal negatives.

Since it is possible to disconfirm a universal negative, one would look at the existence of God. Is it possible to disconfirm that? If one found traits within God that contradicted each other, and there was no solution to it, it would follow that God could not exist. So not only is it possible to disconfirm a universal negative, it is also possible to disconfirm the existence of God.

The problem is that there is no persuasive argument against the existence of God. This is precisely why atheists retreat to the position that does not require any sort of arguments.

Moreover, the argument that one cannot confirm or disconfirm a universal negative, and therefore cannot confirm or disconfirm the nonexistence of God, is doubly fallacious. The statement “God does not exist,” is not a universal negative. It is a singular negative. Singular negatives are clearly open to disconfirmation. “I am not wearing sneakers,” is a singular negative. You could confirm or disconfirm that statement.

So this evasion tactic is very easy to bypass, and is predicated upon ill logic, and a very naïve understanding of the philosophical terms that they are posing. They will have to resort to presenting arguments if they mean to propose atheism as an alternative to Christianity.

 

[sandorski]

so there is a God?

Insufficient Data to determine.