(August 4, 2011 at 3:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(August 3, 2011 at 8:54 pm)edk141 Wrote: You can't prove the existence of concussion waves, electricity (without shocking someone), ultraviolet, infra-red, RF...
In fact, since I can't prove the existence of anything without showing its effect to you directly, do I have to dunk your hand in a bucket of hydrofluoric acid to prove that it exists?

Are you admitting that you accept the existence of things you can't prove exist?

No, the existence of things which can be proved to exist but I cannot look at. Take electricity, it's impossible to actually see any electricity because it's invisible, but you can see its effects. Does that prove it exists?

> So essentially your behavior is confirming a very core teaching of scripture. You are helping verify scripture’s authority on such things. Funny ol’ world isn’t it? :-P
I call you a moron repeatedly. You continue to be unutterably stupid every time you post anything. Does this mean my word is to be taken as an authority on which people are morons?

He must have gone to consult the lord.

(August 4, 2011 at 8:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

---

LOL< Just no. What does god look like Statler, how does he part his hair?

I again demand direct observation of god before he can be said to be proven to exist.

As a side note, I wouldn't go so far as to say all, totality is a tough act, but I would concede that most atheist, in fact most people, believe something that they cannot prove. That's not proof of god Statler. If you want the hypothetical thing they can't prove to be the no-god position it's simple, you only need to provide us with evidence of god. Until then, that atheists (or anyone) believe in things they cannot prove, does not make your personal belief true. Taking this further, if everyone around you was wrong, you wouldn't be right by default.

---

Special pleading. You have already admitted believing in things that have no logical proof and no scientific evidence, and yet you require such things to believe in God? I can only explain this three ways, either you are just completely inconsistent in your worldview, or scripture is completely right when it says the reason you don’t believe in God is not because of lack of proof but because you can’t, the third option is it is a combination of both. I am leaning towards the third option right now.

Actually, if everyone else holds the opposite position as me, and they are proven wrong, logically that does prove me right. It’s called a disjunctive syllogism.

---

(August 4, 2011 at 9:00 pm)edk141 Wrote: No, the existence of things which can be proved to exist but I cannot look at. Take electricity, it's impossible to actually see any electricity because it's invisible, but you can see its effects. Does that prove it exists?

No, that does not "prove" it exists in the real sense of the word. Do you believe in multi-verses and E.T.L.?

Quote: I call you a moron repeatedly. You continue to be unutterably stupid every time you post anything. Does this mean my word is to be taken as an authority on which people are morons?

You call me a moron because ad Hominem is the only card you have in your deck, not because you are any such authority.

---

(August 4, 2011 at 9:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: He must have gone to consult the lord.

No, I just don't get to play Mr. Mom like you do, I have a career.

Unfortunately, in the real world, When you have a disagreement between people who say:

Are standing in front of a purple wall.
(Group A) Insists that the wall is red.
(Group B) Inisists that the wall is yellow.

It is proven beyond doubt to all groups that the wall is not red.
The wall is of course still not yellow.

Of course, we should probably revisit this after you provide evidence for your assumption. In the meantime. I believe in things for which I have no proof, sure, point one out to me. I'll have to be critical of my position, and see how it fares in the wash won't I? How does this support any point at all in your assumption? It is an evasive argument meant to draw attention away from your complete and utter lack of evidence.

With all due respect:
For the record, my children are more important to me than any career I have ever had, and they are certainly more valuable to me than whatever the fuck you do for a dollar. Fuck you. You want more time to spend here, so you can keep right alongside me in posts, keep me from getting in my jabs? Get richer you whiny little shit. Don't you ever implicate my children in some frustrated insult you can't seem to express in any meaningful way. I'm dead serious about my Mr Mom bit, not a fucking ounce of play.

Again, with all due respect.

(August 5, 2011 at 3:15 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually, if everyone else holds the opposite position as me, and they are proven wrong, logically that does prove me right. It’s called a disjunctive syllogism.

Bullshit. You first have to prove that our arguments are exactly opposite and mutually exclusive (i.e. that exactly one of them might be true). From Wikipedia, a disjunctive syllogism is of this form:
A is B or C
A is not C
Therefore, A is B

Even if you do prove all of us wrong, you have to prove that exactly one side is arguing the correct point.

---

(August 5, 2011 at 3:15 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(August 4, 2011 at 9:00 pm)edk141 Wrote: No, the existence of things which can be proved to exist but I cannot look at. Take electricity, it's impossible to actually see any electricity because it's invisible, but you can see its effects. Does that prove it exists?

No, that does not "prove" it exists in the real sense of the word. Do you believe in multi-verses and E.T.L.?

Quote: I call you a moron repeatedly. You continue to be unutterably stupid every time you post anything. Does this mean my word is to be taken as an authority on which people are morons?

You call me a moron because ad Hominem is the only card you have in your deck, not because you are any such authority.

I need authority to call you a moron? Well then I guess you need authority to claim the existence of a supernatural fucking sky daddy who is omnipotent yet still has to sacrifice himself to himself to save the imperfect humans he created in the image of his perfect self from the Hell which it is his choice to send them to.

(August 5, 2011 at 3:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

---

Unfortunately, in the real world, When you have a disagreement between people who say:

Are standing in front of a purple wall.
(Group A) Insists that the wall is red.
(Group B) Inisists that the wall is yellow.

It is proven beyond doubt to all groups that the wall is not red.
The wall is of course still not yellow.

Of course, we should probably revisit this after you provide evidence for your assumption. In the meantime. I believe in things for which I have no proof, sure, point one out to me. I'll have to be critical of my position, and see how it fares in the wash won't I? How does this support any point at all in your assumption? It is an evasive argument meant to draw attention away from your complete and utter lack of evidence.

(And for the record, my children are more important to me than any career I have ever had, and they are certainly more valuable to me than whatever the fuck you do for a dollar. Fuck you. You want more time to spend here, so you can keep right alongside me in posts, keep me from getting in my jabs? Get richer you whiny little shit. Don't you ever implicate my children in some frustrated insult you can't seem to express in any meaningful way. I'm dead serious about my Mr Mom bit, not a fucking ounce of play.)

---

Sorry, couldn’t figure out what you were getting at with the wall example. Why do you require proof of God’s existence when you have already admitted believing in other things without proof?

Touched a bit of a nerve there I see. Where did I say your kids were not important to you? I just said I don’t have all day to spend on here like you do, I have a job. If you can’t take even slight ridicule maybe you shouldn’t dish it out? Ever think of that?

Evidence?

(August 5, 2011 at 3:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Touched a bit of a nerve there I see. Where did I say your kids were not important to you? I just said I don’t have all day to spend on here like you do, I have a job. If you can’t take even slight ridicule maybe you shouldn’t dish it out? Ever think of that?

You get ridiculed for being a fucking asshole, you ridicule for trying to be a good dad? Fuck you, asshole.

For the record, this has nothing to do with my arguments against your stupid logical fallacies, I'm not trying to suggest that what you say is false by implying you are an asshole because I don't need to, but that was fucking out of order. If I were Rhythm, I'd be reporting you, bitching to mods, and possibly punching you in the face, so good on him.

(August 5, 2011 at 3:31 pm)edk141 Wrote:

---

Bullshit. You first have to prove that our arguments are exactly opposite and mutually exclusive (i.e. that exactly one of them might be true). From Wikipedia, a disjunctive syllogism is of this form:
A is B or C
A is not C
Therefore, A is B

Even if you do prove all of us wrong, you have to prove that exactly one side is arguing the correct point.

---

I am well aware of the form of a disjunctive syllogism, I am not a moron:-P It’s easy to prove our arguments are completely opposite using the law of excluded middle. Either we live in a purely naturalistic universe, or we don't. It is that simple. If I can destroy the possibility of a naturalistic world, the supernatural exists by default. Once we admit the supernatural exists we can then move on to why it has to be a god, once we admit there has to be a god we can move on to why it has to be the God of scripture.

(August 5, 2011 at 3:39 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I am well aware of the form of a disjunctive syllogism, I am not a moron:-P It’s easy to prove our arguments are completely opposite using the law of excluded middle. Either we live in a purely naturalistic universe, or we don't. It is that simple. If I can destroy the possibility of a naturalistic world, the supernatural exists by default. Once we admit the supernatural exists we can then move on to why it has to be a god, once we admit there has to be a god we can move on to why it has to be the God of scripture.

The original premise of the argument was that the Bible is a fantasy book, however if that is the line you wish to argue I'll happily admit that your disjunctive syllogism holds. I doubt you can prove we don't live in a purely naturalistic universe however, feel free to try. And remember: proofs need evidence. Good luck.