Noah's Ark

#176
#176
rjd970 said:
1. No it isn't. Is it really this hard? Tell me where you learned in your supreme logic understanding that disproving a negative is possible.

2. LOL....no, not even in the least.
Click to expand...

You ready to feel like a moron? Do a search for: "You can prove a negative." You can.

I do not have a pea in my hand.

You can disprove that. My dog is not a Great Dane. You can prove or disprove that.

Now, while you're searching the interwebs to get better at logic, search something to the effect of "every statement has a positive and a negative".

That same rule of logic would state that:

There is a God.
There is not a God.

Are both religious statements.

And they both carry the same burden of proof.

That burden is bigger that an argument from incredulity, attack the man, and true scotsman.

:hi:
 
#177
#177
Orange_Crush said:
"Not IF Christianity is right. IF Christianity is right, then He's doing the world a lot of good."

It goes back to internal consistency. IF Christianity is right about that, it CAN be right about the rest.

IF Christianity could not have accounted for that argument, you would have created a contradiction. But IF Christianity can account for it, then you have not.
Click to expand...

So what I'm hearing is you are not saying Christianity is right. Only IF it is right...then it makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#178
#178
MercyPercy said:
Atheists 'have higher IQs': Their intelligence 'makes them more likely to dismiss religion as irrational and unscientific' | Mail Online

"The conclusions were the result of a review of 63 scientific studies about religion and intelligence dating between 1928 and last year.
In 53 of these there was a ‘reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity’.
In just 10 was that relationship positive.
Even among children, the more intelligent a child was the more probable it was that they would shun the church.
In old age the same trend persisted as well, the research showed.
The University of Rochester psychologists behind the study defined religion as involvement in some or all parts of a belief.
They defined intelligence as the ‘ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience’.
In their conclusions, they said: ‘Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme - the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’.
‘Intelligent people typically spend more time in school - a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits.
‘More intelligent people getting higher level jobs and better employment and higher salary may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.’
Study co-author Jordan Silberman, a graduate student of neuroeconomics at the University of Rochester, said: ‘Intelligence may lead to greater self-control ability, self-esteem, perceived control over life events, and supportive relationships, obviating some of the benefits that religion sometimes provides.’"
Click to expand...

It must feel really bad that you can't debate someone of lower IQ without resorting to fallacies such as attack the man, and incredulity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#180
#180
rjd970 said:
So what I'm hearing is you are not saying Christianity is right. Only IF it is right...then it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Go back and reread my posts carefully. I've been very patient in explaining that you have not disproved Christianity by inferring nihilistic meaninglessness to it.
 
#181
#181
Orange_Crush said:
You ready to feel like a moron? Do a search for: "You can prove a negative." You can.

I do not have a pea in my hand.

You can disprove that. My dog is not a Great Dane. You can prove or disprove that.

Now, while you're searching the interwebs to get better at logic, search something to the effect of "every statement has a positive and a negative".

That same rule of logic would state that:

There is a God.
There is not a God.

Are both religious statements.

And they both carry the same burden of proof.

That burden is bigger that an argument from incredulity, attack the man, and true scotsman.

:hi:
Click to expand...

Are you serious with this?

Me saying all evidence for God existing is inadequate, doesn't equate that there is a burden of proof for me to prove he in fact doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#182
#182
Orange_Crush said:
Go back and reread my posts carefully. I've been very patient in explaining that you have not disproved Christianity by inferring nihilistic meaninglessness to it.
Click to expand...

Just answer that question and it should clear it up for my feeble mind. This can even be a Yes/No question if you so desire.

So what I'm hearing is you are not saying Christianity is right. Only IF it is right...then it makes sense.
Click to expand...
 
#183
#183
Orange_Crush said:
You ready to feel like a moron? Do a search for: "You can prove a negative." You can.

I do not have a pea in my hand.

You can disprove that. My dog is not a Great Dane. You can prove or disprove that.

Now, while you're searching the interwebs to get better at logic, search something to the effect of "every statement has a positive and a negative".

That same rule of logic would state that:

There is a God.
There is not a God.

Are both religious statements.

And they both carry the same burden of proof.

That burden is bigger that an argument from incredulity, attack the man, and true scotsman.

:hi:
Click to expand...

Well in those cases, sure you can. The ability to prove or disprove such things is readily available. I can disprove that you have a pea in your hand because you have a hand that can open. I can disprove that you own a Great Dane because I could go to your house and see for myself.

However, to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being requires a readily available test or experiment that does not exist yet. Since that does not exist, we must gather all the evidence we can and make a judgement based on that. Since we cannot see, touch, feel, or otherwise observe that there is a god or gods, the default position must be that there is no god or other supreme being.

Furthermore, to say that "There is a God" and "There is no God" are both statements of religious assertion is much like saying that "I collect model trains" and "I do not collect model trains" are both statements of hobbies that one has. If I do not collect model trains, I am absent from this hobby. If I say that there is no god, I am stating the absence of a god, not the presence of no god.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#184
#184
rjd970 said:
Are you serious with this?

Me saying all evidence for God existing is inadequate, doesn't equate that there is a burden of proof for me to prove he in fact doesn't.
Click to expand...

What was the statement you made?

Something to the effect of "I would say it is I do understand, and it makes no sense, or has any bearing on the reality of intelligent people living in the 21st century."

That's a religious statement. Prove it.

It's a heavy inference that God does not exist.

Prove that too.

You made a positive statement. The burden of proof is yours.

You did so after claiming that religious people make religious statements with no proof.

You are a hypocrite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#185
#185
KingNick865 said:
Well in those cases, sure you can. The ability to prove or disprove such things is readily available. I can disprove that you have a pea in your hand because you have a hand that can open. I can disprove that you own a Great Dane because I could go to your house and see for myself.

However, to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being requires a readily available test or experiment that does not exist yet. Since that does not exist, we must gather all the evidence we can and make a judgement based on that. Since we cannot see, touch, feel, or otherwise observe that there is a god or gods, the default position must be that there is no god or other supreme being.
Click to expand...

You invented that.
 
#186
#186
rjd970 said:
Just answer that question and it should clear it up for my feeble mind. This can even be a Yes/No question if you so desire.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I believe that Christianity is right.

The point in discussion is whether you dealt a crippling blow to Christianity by judging it with nihilistic philosophy.
 
#187
#187
Orange_Crush said:
That same rule of logic would state that:

There is a God.
There is not a God.

Are both religious statements.
Click to expand...

Nope, wrong again. A non-belief is not a belief.

Even theologians long ago conceded this fact and cooked up the "faith is a virtue story to get around it. It isn't about evidence, its about faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#189
#189
rjd970 said:
Nope, wrong again. A non-belief is not a belief.

Even theologians long ago conceded this fact and cooked up the "faith is a virtue story to get around it. It isn't about evidence, its about faith.
Click to expand...

That's a copout. You believe that there is no God, correct?

It is logically equivalent to:

I do not believe that there is a God.

All logical statements have positive and negative equivalent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#190
#190
rjd970 said:
Nope, wrong again. A non-belief is not a belief.

Even theologians long ago conceded this fact and cooked up the "faith is a virtue story to get around it. It isn't about evidence, its about faith.
Click to expand...

One day you are going to need him, and I pray you find him. You are a good guy. But the fact that some of you just get so butt hurt that folks like us believe in a higher being baffles my mind.

You don't believe, great. Why argue the fact about something you deem null and void??
 
#191
#191
Orange_Crush said:
You invented that.
Click to expand...

If you cannot prove the existence of something, you must assume that it does not exist until there is proof that it does exist.

For example, we shall take the FSM example from earlier and apply it. If I say that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is invisible and floats in the sky and rains meatballs and spaghetti sauce, but that it is invisible and that you could not feel or sense him or His Noodliness or his spaghetti rain, then you must assume that he does not exist until I can either design an experiment or supply proof that he does exist.

In other words, until I provide proof of something, the default, proven scientific position is the prevailing one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#192
#192
KingNick865 said:
If you cannot prove the existence of something, you must assume that it does not exist until there is proof that it does exist.

For example, we shall take the FSM example from earlier and apply it. If I say that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is invisible and floats in the sky and rains meatballs and spaghetti sauce, but that it is invisible and that you could not feel or sense him or His Noodliness or his spaghetti rain, then you must assume that he does not exist until I can either design an experiment or supply proof that he does exist.

In other words, until I provide proof of something, the default, proven scientific position is the prevailing one.
Click to expand...

I'm telling you, you invented that. Research the Higgs Boson.
 
#193
#193
KingNick865 said:
If you cannot prove the existence of something, you must assume that it does not exist until there is proof that it does exist.

For example, we shall take the FSM example from earlier and apply it. If I say that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is invisible and floats in the sky and rains meatballs and spaghetti sauce, but that it is invisible and that you could not feel or sense him or His Noodliness or his spaghetti rain, then you must assume that he does not exist until I can either design an experiment or supply proof that he does exist.

In other words, until I provide proof of something, the default, proven scientific position is the prevailing one.
Click to expand...

This should be good.
 
#194
#194
Orange_Crush said:
Obviously, I believe that Christianity is right.

The point in discussion is whether you dealt a crippling blow to Christianity by judging it with nihilistic philosophy.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask if you thought Christianity is right. I kind of gathered that.

I asked if you believe Christianity is right....so it makes sense? The reason I am asking is it would explain where our difference fundamentally is. In every other facet of what we believe something has to make sense first, then we determine it is right....not assume it is right first then say it makes sense afterward.
 
#196
#196
I don't believe in god, bigfoot, santa, or unicorns. I wouldn't consider any to be religious beliefs, simply the absence of belief in those things.
 
#197
#197
Orange_Crush said:
That's a copout. You believe that there is no God, correct?

It is logically equivalent to:

I do not believe that there is a God.

All logical statements have positive and negative equivalent.
Click to expand...

No.

I believe all evidence put forward by believers is inadequate. Come with something better and I'm open. To believe something that fantastic the proof needs to be fantastic...for I am a serious doubting Thomas.

Inevitably it always comes down to "faith" and reasons why fantastic evidence isn't possible.
 
#200
#200
MercyPercy said:
I don't believe in god, bigfoot, santa, or unicorns. I wouldn't consider any to be religious beliefs, simply the absence of belief in those things.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I even think the term "atheist" is meaningless. We don't have a special word for non-belief in santa, bigfoot, unicorns, or astrology. Why for God?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top