(November 9, 2017 at 9:39 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: You realize that science isn't the only thing that needs evidence, right?  Historical claims need evidence as well.  Why do you think historians don't believe in Julius Caesar's divinity or the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt?  Because there's no evidence to support those statements.  Any statement that makes an assertion about reality needs evidence, or one is being unreasonable in believing it.  Have you ever read a history book?  Go look in the back at all the sources of evidence that are cited.

Or a court of law for that matter. Using Pooley logic the jurors can return a verdict of guilty or not guilty without listening to any evidence because it's not a scientific investigation. If Pooley logic was the standard by which the world worked then the police would be charging people all the time who then got convicted because their appearance upset the jurors.

(November 9, 2017 at 9:46 am)Khemikal Wrote: Then you are saying that magic book does not purport to report facts which can be tested by the scientific method.

This leaves you in a very sticky situation.  You've "gotcha'd" yourself and still haven't managed to point out a straw man. Surely this isn't your intention?

Again wrong. Since you have no intention to properly read the op I'll give you a summary

*Only scientific works need to submit scientific evidence

*Bible is a religious work not a scientific work(it's called the Christian faith not the Christian science isn't it and nowhere inside Bible it claims it is a scientific work)

*When you ask for evidence of a God you are strawmanning that Bible is a scientific work(which you haven't proven)

*So if you want evidence of a God then you have to first prove that Bible is scientific

---

(November 9, 2017 at 9:57 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(November 9, 2017 at 9:53 am)pool the matey Wrote: The thing about historical evidences is you can't say evidence for something won't be found just because it isn't found right now. We are learning and discovering many things each day.

A promise of evidence tomorrow demonstrates nothing today, and is incapable of mounting a serious objection to what evidence we do have today.  What -can- be said, if you're hoping for evidence tomorrow, is that you do not have any today. 

You're pleading the possibility of some meaningful ignorance with your interlocuter, and while potentially true..it's entirely uninformative. It will always be the case that there may be something that we don't know. Even if we had "complete knowledge" about some subject x, the one thing missing would be knowledge of complete knowledge. This is why a requirement of complete knowledge is unreasonable.

Quote:Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

Quote:No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine “bugs” we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

Will you apply the same standard here as well?

https://www.ucg.org/vertical-thought/pro...-the-bible

---

(November 9, 2017 at 9:53 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: All OP has demonstrated here is that he has no clue whatsoever what a strawman is.

Asking for evidence could never be, in any context.

Maybe we should all chip in and get him a free online dictionary?

Quote:Again wrong. Since you have no intention to properly read the op I'll give you a summary

*Only scientific works need to submit scientific evidence

*Bible is a religious work not a scientific work(it's called the Christian faith not the Christian science isn't it and nowhere inside Bible it claims it is a scientific work)

*When you ask for evidence of a God you are strawmanning that Bible is a scientific work(which you haven't proven)

*So if you want evidence of a God then you have to first prove that Bible is scientific

(November 9, 2017 at 9:59 am)pool the matey Wrote: Again wrong. Since you have no intention to properly read the op I'll give you a summary

*Only scientific works need to submit scientific evidence

This isn;t true at all.

Quote:*Bible is a religious work not a scientific work(it's called the Christian faith not the Christian science isn't it and nowhere inside Bible it claims it is a scientific work)

Agreed, magic book is not scientific.  It's not scientific, because the method was not used to produce it, and it;s positively -unscientific- in that the claims it purports as facts are falsifiable, and have been falsified..by the scientific method.

Quote:*When you ask for evidence of a God you are strawmanning that Bible is a scientific work(which you haven't proven)

I can prove that it purports to report facts that can be and have been tested by the scientific method...and have been falsified by the same.  I can also explain how, by definition..magic book is not a scientific text.  A point on which we agree. However, asking for scientific evidence of any of these claims is not a strawman, it's just a query as to whether or not any of the claims rise to a particular standard of evidence. Do they, in your opinion? Regardless of how you bring yourself to answer this question, this time, a person is not insisting that you believe that it is a scientific text when asking you for scientific evidence, or even evidence in the general. If you don;t believe that magic book is either..and someone asks you for it....just....say....no. Acknowledge that you don;t have scientific evidence, or evidence, and don't think that magic book is either. Problem solved, no one has straw manned anyone, and clarification of ones position has been provided.

Quote:*So if you want evidence of a God then you have to first prove that Bible is scientific

Hardly.  You;re now attempting to misclassify a straw man by use of equivocation....and you're still fucking it up.

You cannot simultaneously bristle at the suggestion that magic book is...and isn't...a scientific text.  That it does, and doesn't, make claims that could be evidenced.  In both cases, the propositions are mutually exclusive, and your comments in both regards are an incoherent mess.

(November 9, 2017 at 9:59 am)pool the matey Wrote: Again wrong. Since you have no intention to properly read the op I'll give you a summary

*Only scientific works need to submit scientific evidence

And from this one faulty premise the rest can be ignored.

You keep saying that we haven't read your OP. We have. No one agrees with it.

Scientific evidence is used for  other inquiries. And not all evidence is scientific. A court of law will use scientific evidence if it is available e.g. DNA analysis. But a court wion't wait for a paper to be published in a peer reviewed journal before passing a sentence. Political systems set up enquiries all the time that take into account all forms of evidence.

@Khemikal
* Bible is a religious work not a scientific work.
* Give me scientific evidence for a God.
* But Bible isn't a scientific work

What is your response? Is Bible a scientific work or not? Or do you have any proof to back up your claim/straw that you implicitly made when you asked for scientific evidence from a religious textbook.

I've explained it perfectly to you.

---

(November 9, 2017 at 10:05 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 9, 2017 at 9:59 am)pool the matey Wrote: Again wrong. Since you have no intention to properly read the op I'll give you a summary

*Only scientific works need to submit scientific evidence

And from this one faulty premise the rest can be ignored.

You keep saying that we haven't read your OP. We have. No one agrees with it.

Scientific evidence is used for  other inquiries. And not all evidence is scientific. A court of law will use scientific evidence if it is available e.g. DNA analysis. But a court wion't wait for a paper to be published in a peer reviewed journal before passing a sentence. Political systems set up enquiries all the time that take into account all forms of evidence.

Lol there you go talking about unrelated stuff like DNA tests... Answer this for me is Bible a scientific work or. Not?

If pool's OP was true, and theists really don't need any reasons or evidence for their god/beliefs, then that renders the entire field of apologetics useless. I'm sure the Catholic Church and Baptist conventions will be happy to hear that.

(November 9, 2017 at 9:59 am)pool the matey Wrote:

Quote:Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

Quote:No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine “bugs” we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

Will you apply the same standard here as well?

https://www.ucg.org/vertical-thought/pro...-the-bible

It;s always evolution with believers, isn't it? 

Sure, I apply the same standard.  There's no reason to promise evidence tomorrow for what can be evidenced today.  We know..today, that organisms such as trilobites have mommies and daddies.  No need to wait for tomorrow.

(November 9, 2017 at 10:09 am)pool the matey Wrote: Lol there you go talking about unrelated stuff like DNA tests... Answer this for me is Bible a scientific work or. Not?

No, it's a work of fiction. But not because it isn't scientific. Lots of things provide evidence which are not scientific.

Scientific is not a synonym for evidence.

(November 9, 2017 at 1:21 am)pool the matey Wrote: Sometimes it's good to have a conversation with a non believer because you learn certain things from them and they learn certain things from you because you're both open minded and you both have a good conversation.

Other times some people are just close minded, they don't care about having a conversation, they're just there to show their "dominance" over you with comments that degrade virgin Mary, how you're too weak minded to be believing in "made up stories", or just to poke fun at you. Well, you can tell these assholes asking for evidence of God is silly according to their own standards. Why?

Because it's a strawman fallacy. How?

Only scientific textbooks needs to provide scientific evidence.

Nowhere in the Bible does it claim to be a scientific textbook, it's a religious textbook and it's called the Christian faith not the Christian science.

So when someone asks for scientific evidence they themselves are asserting that Bible is a scientific textbook(which it never claimed) and then asks for evidence(which it doesn't have to present).

So next time someone just wants to shut you down, you can do the same thing to them. Ask them to show where in the bible it claims to be a scientific textbook and then you'll give the scientific evidence.

The most obvious reply will be "So if Bible isn't scientific it isn't real is it lolololol". You can use the same trick atheists use(It's not that I DON'T believe in God or claim God doesn't exist, I just reject the claim). Just reply "I never claimed Bible isn't scientific, I just reject your claim that Bible is scientific because you didn't provide any evidence to back it up"

So you're basically saying the Christian faith is something one opts into for their own reasons, not on the basis of evidence.  I agree.  To me most of the 'reasons' I hear xtians profess seem to spring from their interior lives and musings about how our exterior world might just be some greater being's interior world, making us and everything else it dreams/thinks its creations.  If you decide to go down that rabbit hole I imagine you can have a good enough life, why not?  

The rub comes when you turn around and try to spread the good word.  Too many act as if they've forgotten that there is no evidence, that the mindset of their faith is but one of myriad rabbit holes one can choose.  "Follow me, everyone.  We've got carrots and Christ-on-a-stick down our hole, and the party never stops!"  Some of us like it here above ground and aren't shopping for tunneled believing.

(November 9, 2017 at 1:21 am)pool the matey Wrote: Obviously only use this against assholes that just want to mock and belittle you, having a discussion is always good but some people are just assholes that doesn't deserve a decent conversation and it also doesn't hurt to have a bigger arsenal.

I don't doubt your qualifications for making this determination.

You claim something exists. That's a scientific claim whether you like it or not.
Science is the method that we use to sudy things that exist.
Something doesn't have to be in a science journal to be investigated using science.

And asking for evidence isn't a gotcha moment. It's a legitimate thing people do when seeking to determine the truth of any matter. All.the.time.

Your pathetic strawman and attempt at gotcha is totally weak. Mystic knights ramblings on beauty and ultimate truth are better arguments.