Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Yes logic works that way blam. If you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.
You must use the method appropriate to the subject. If the unicorn is meant to be a physically evidenced creature then it would be appropriate to expect physical evidence. If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.
Posts: 5652
Threads: 133
Joined: May 10, 2011
Reputation:
69
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 2:19 pm
(November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method,
That is because he doesn't exist 
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 2:20 pm
(November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: How do you know this? Because it can be logically summised.
(November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: What gives you the authority to claim this? You are making this statement as fact, I do not accept "christians say so" as a fact. Is that through any rational process? Or you simply being discriminatory?
(November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: You have only posted intellectual sounding, meaningless, word salad - AKA theology. Baseless accusations.
(November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Because christians said so. This just isn't good enough for me. Quite the contrary. I have presented you with reasoning and you have responded with the pantomime fallacy: "oh no it isn't"
(November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Nooooooo, it is logical to be able to expect to be able to collect evidence of a real phenomenon. So you dismiss everything existant which is non empirical. Would you classify your belief as scientism?
Posts: 4067
Threads: 162
Joined: September 14, 2010
Reputation:
95
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 2:30 pm
(November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.
"Equation" (with a "t") in case if you didn't know that.
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 2:36 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2011 at 2:41 pm by Norfolk And Chance.)
(November 13, 2011 at 2:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: How do you know this? Because it can be logically summised.
(November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: What gives you the authority to claim this? You are making this statement as fact, I do not accept "christians say so" as a fact. Is that through any rational process? Or you simply being discriminatory?
(November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: You have only posted intellectual sounding, meaningless, word salad - AKA theology. Baseless accusations.
(November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Because christians said so. This just isn't good enough for me. Quite the contrary. I have presented you with reasoning and you have responded with the pantomime fallacy: "oh no it isn't"
(November 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Nooooooo, it is logical to be able to expect to be able to collect evidence of a real phenomenon. So you dismiss everything existant which is non empirical. Would you classify your belief as scientism?
You have presented no good reasoning, no good logic, and you are boring the shite out of me with your dull repetetive answers.
Your starting point (in a nutshell) is "the christian definition of god means he cannot be empirically tested", however your opinion holds no weight because the christian definition holds no authority to anybody but a believing christian. And the reason that definition holds no authority to non christians is because there is nothing behind that definition other than "because we christians say so".
This starting point is therefore simply not a solid fact that you can build your castle on, but only, at best, a belief. This completely invalidates any complete crap shoot that you set up after that point. It is complete meaningless waffle. I want to evidence not belief.
We are wasting each others time.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Thanks Rayaan *pokes Rayaan lovingly in the eye* 
Hey Norfolk. Yes indeed. Point remains: requiring empirical evidence of something non emprical is grossly illogical. If you can't understand that I'm afraid you'll have to remain in the atheist kindergarten. Have a nice life.
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 3:24 pm
I'll have a great life.
You keep on postulating that this is something non empirical and say it is illogical to expect empirical evidence, yet you cannot show it is non empirical in the first place (beyond claiming christians say so) for fucks sake. YOU are illogical, you have to be illogical to be a theist.
Come back with your "having the last word always, because I've proven my point" when you have actually proven a point with a credible statement. Actually no, I'll take you just having a decent starting point which doesn't invalidate the rest of the waffle.
Have a nice death and afterlife.
Posts: 371
Threads: 9
Joined: October 29, 2011
Reputation:
6
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 4:52 pm
(November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes logic works that way blam. If you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles. if I had to push scientific methods on the existence of god, it'd be wasteful of time. However, if we had to push scientific methods on the bible [in where all of concept of god based on]. It'd be easy to conclude god may not involved.
(November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You must use the method appropriate to the subject. If the unicorn is meant to be a physically evidenced creature then it would be appropriate to expect physical evidence. What is appropriate word to explain the existence of god? Faith, right?
(November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.
But mathematical equations are one of theories to describe of our understanding of the universe. The mathematical formula like kinetic energy - explaining how much energy in traveling projectile or amount of energy produced by asteroid crashing into ground.
I understand what are you trying to say that science and faith is mutually excessive.
Posts: 66519
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 5:33 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
According to the tradition that Frodo belongs too, more accurately. Plenty of people claim that there are mountains of credible scientific evidence for god and the innerrancy of scripture. The only reason that Frodo likes his particular platitude over theirs is that he feels that it excuses him from providing something he does not have in his possession. The god proposition, to him, doesn't require evidence, and "there can be none". Well, gl with that. It's a not so clever way of saying "Unless you take my claims at face value without scrutiny this is all obvious bullshit". Works for him though.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 13, 2011 at 6:48 pm
(November 13, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Blam! Wrote: It'd be easy to conclude god may not involved. I think I know what you are saying, but could you clarify please.
(November 13, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Blam! Wrote: (November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You must use the method appropriate to the subject. If the unicorn is meant to be a physically evidenced creature then it would be appropriate to expect physical evidence. What is appropriate word to explain the existence of god? Faith, right? The evidence we have of God is what we can logically deduce. We can test that for logical soundness.
(November 13, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Blam! Wrote: (November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.
But mathematical equations are one of theories to describe of our understanding of the universe. The mathematical formula like kinetic energy - explaining how much energy in traveling projectile or amount of energy produced by asteroid crashing into ground.
I understand what are you trying to say that science and faith is mutually excessive. Well at some point they have to meet. But yes, you get the picture.
|
