(April 16, 2013 at 10:22 pm)Cinjin Wrote: It's not a magnificent claim at all. It's a really simple premise the way I understand the meaning.

Holy monkey balls! Cinjin! I haven’t talked to you in ages, how have you been? I hope you are doing well.

Quote: That rainbow is beautiful - many would consider that "proof" of god.

I wouldn’t. But for the sake of discussion, Queen’s claim was that science disproves the proofs for God’s existence, so specifically how does science disprove that a rainbow is beautiful? I am not following you on that one.

Quote: That volcano erupted and destroyed that wicked city ... "proof" of god.
The ocean tides rise and fall like clockwork. We later discovered the moon takes the credit ... "proof" of god.

Those are not deductive proofs for God’s existence, so I don’t think either of them is relevant to Queen’s claim.

Quote: I could go on and on Stat. What she said is a true statement when you realize any tangible "proof" that you christards offer up as evidence has been proven not so by science.

You’re not even in the same ball park; please specifically explain to me how science disproves the Cosmological Argument for God’s existence, the Ontological argument for God’s existence and so on. Those are all deductive proves that science (which operates using the principle of induction) has nothing to do with. Science cannot disprove that necessary existence is a necessary property of God in all possible worlds, or that everything that has a beginning must also have a cause (especially considering the fact that science assumes causation is Universally true).

Quote: Furthermore, stop being such a dick.

Perhaps you’re just being overly sensitive.

Quote: There's no proof your god exists, let it the fuck go already.

The proof for God’s existence is overwhelming, let it go already.

Quote: You can't just believe and let it be can you ... you have to come here and be a prick to everyone.

I haven’t been mean to anyone, I have merely pointed out the errors they are committing, if that is your definition of “being a prick” then why are you trying to point out my errors to me? Oops, caught you.

I’ve really missed you!

(April 16, 2013 at 11:33 pm)smax Wrote: I'm stating the obvious. For something to be supernatural, it must be SUPERNATURAL. And it's unreasonable to believe in something supernatural unless it is verifiable. Is that really hard to understand?

It’s not hard to understand, it’s just not an accurate statement, that’s all. So you are saying that the only way you’ll believe in something supernatural is if you experience it first hand?

Quote: I realize that you've grown accustomed to believing in the supernatural merely because other people told you it exists, but at some point you have to grow up and challenge the existence of Santa Clause.

I believe in the supernatural because it necessarily has to exist. Santa Clause? I am not sure what that is. However, comparing Santa CLAUS to an immaterial, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, creator God is a false analogy.

Quote: Make the man show himself, and prove his power. Not to much to ask, unless you've been conveniently brain washed into believing that such a logical challenge is somehow "evil".

So you only believe in that which you have seen? Seriously?

Quote:Wouldn't matter if he was a high school drop out working at McDonald's. Logic and reason do not discriminate.

You didn’t appeal to logic or reason, you appealed to Christopher Hitchens.

Quote:What kind of nonsense is this? Do you really require clarification of what is magnificent?

No, I require clarification on what makes a claim magnificent. Your own personal opinion? Christopher Hitchens’s opinion? I reject that standard because it’s arbitrary.

Quote: Would it be too much to ask that you merely look the word the up, being that you evidently lack the basic education it would have taken to know it in the first place?

There’s no need to be condescending, especially considering the fact that you didn’t even understand what I clearly asked for. I asked what made a claim magnificent, not what the definition of the word magnificent was.
You also conveniently avoided my other question, what’s a magnificent proof? How is that different from inductive supports and deductive proofs? I am not aware of that classification of proof. Perhaps I am just not educated enough and you can enlighten me.

Quote: I'm really not trying to be condescending, but come on!

You’re just naturally that way? That’s even worse.

Quote: A word of advice, and it's really the best advice anyone can offer you. Stop assuming you've got this subject right, and stop rejecting some of the most important and critical questions that should have to be answered in order to justify your faith.

Thanks for the advice, but I will remain confident in my position and continue to defend it, after all that’s what you seem to be doing as well, or do you not think you’re right?

Quote: If you can't do that, what good are you really in discussions like this?

I hold my own, I am not sure why you seem to think that the definition of a good debater is someone who doesn’t think they are right; that’s ridiculous.

Hold on a second...did I actually say it disproves anything? I think I usually say that nothing has been brought forward that gives repeatable evidence for god's existence. On the other hand, if you want to test certain claims, I think it's quite right that many things in the Bible have been falsified by science - the process of which and the outcomes you don't trust. You and I deal in apples and oranges, and never the twain shall meet, which is why I don't arse myself to be bothered by you.

Actually, the reason I missed you, infuriating as you sometimes are, is that at least you're polite and coherent, which many of your brethren cannot claim, and thus watching you spit out your bullshit is more like watching useful piles of bullshit being laid (that can later be turned into compost) as opposed to watching a hopeless tide of diarrhea leave a septic tank.

As a gardener, that's actually more flattering than it might sound.

I think I told you once that you could logic the sun away and it would still rise tomorrow. Come back when you have tangible, quantifiable evidence for your BS, Stat.

(April 18, 2013 at 6:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s not hard to understand, it’s just not an accurate statement, that’s all. So you are saying that the only way you’ll believe in something supernatural is if you experience it first hand?

Experience wouldn't even necessarily do it. Experiences can, and often are, delussions. I have no doubt that many of these charasmatic Christians experience the supernatural all the time, just like acid droppers do.

No, the supernatural must be verifiable to be held with any regard.

Quote:I believe in the supernatural because it necessarily has to exist.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't merit wild speculation about the supernatural, which brings us back to verification.

Quote:Santa Clause? I am not sure what that is. However, comparing Santa CLAUS to an immaterial, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, creator God is a false analogy.

You are right. Both are inventions, but the creator invention is much more far fetched.

Quote:So you only believe in that which you have seen? Seriously?

I believe in what I can verify. So should you.

Quote:You didn’t appeal to logic or reason, you appealed to Christopher Hitchens.

Not at all. I quoted him, but the merit is in the material itself, not the man.

With that, allow me to further educate you. When you quote someone, it's common courtesy to properly credit the quote instead of passsing it off as your own, which is plagiarism.

Sorry the name prevented the point from penetrating your skull.

Quote:No, I require clarification on what makes a claim magnificent. Your own personal opinion? Christopher Hitchens’s opinion? I reject that standard because it’s arbitrary.

Deflect much?

Here:

1. Splendid in appearance; grand:
2. Grand or noble in thought or deed; exalted.
3. Outstanding of its kind; superlative:

Hey, I got an idea, let's talk about Christopher Hitchens some more!

Quote:There’s no need to be condescending, especially considering the fact that you didn’t even understand what I clearly asked for. I asked what made a claim magnificent, not what the definition of the word magnificent was.

I understood perfectly what you were doing. You were faced with the harsh reality of a valid point, and you used a petty method of deflection to avoid actually addressing it.

Quote:You also conveniently avoided my other question, what’s a magnificent proof? How is that different from inductive supports and deductive proofs? I am not aware of that classification of proof. Perhaps I am just not educated enough and you can enlighten me.

Here lies the dead carcass of Big Foot. Study it, preserve it, put it in a musseum, do what you will. But this nearly century old legend is now a documentable part of history.

Inductive reasoning has it's place, as does deductive reasoning. Unfortunately for you, that kind of reasoning whiped your god out a long time ago.

Can't wait to dive a little more into this one.

Quote:Thanks for the advice, but I will remain confident in my position and continue to defend it, after all that’s what you seem to be doing as well, or do you not think you’re right?

Well, I've carefully considered both sides of the argument, so I consider my conclusions to have a much greater degree of merit. I can tell by your rather naive perspective that you've given no consideration to the possibility that you may be wrong about this.

With that, allow me to warn you: when (or if) you do, your faith will progressively diminish until you eventually have none left. But that's a good thing. Reality is a good thing. The world needs more realists.

I can't wait for you to join us.

Quote:I hold my own, I am not sure why you seem to think that the definition of a good debater is someone who doesn’t think they are right; that’s ridiculous.

I'd like to think this discussion is more than just a debate. I'd like to think that we are actually trying to accomplish something here. If that is the case, then obviously a closed mind is useless to the discussion.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:29 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Hold on a second...did I actually say it disproves anything? I think I usually say that nothing has been brought forward that gives repeatable evidence for god's existence.

Well you used the term “refuted”, but I am glad it looks like you’ve realized that the scientific method cannot be used to refute a deductive argument.

Quote: On the other hand, if you want to test certain claims, I think it's quite right that many things in the Bible have been falsified by science - the process of which and the outcomes you don't trust.

I think you are completely oversimplifying this issue Queen.

1. A miracle, in the Biblical sense is by definition a violation of natural law, it’s a supernatural event; so when you say that science (which deals only with natural laws) has demonstrated that virgins don’t give birth, men don’t turn water into whine, men don’t walk on water, donkeys don’t talk, and axe heads don’t float you’re really only proving the Bible’s point. Those events were evidence of God’s power because they violated natural law. It appears that it is actually you who is trying to compare apples and oranges, or namely the natural and the supernatural.
2. If scripture is the word of God, it would therefore be infallible. This means that you cannot use a fallible source such as science to refute scriptures claim to infallibility. If a person claimed that they could not tell a lie, you could not use a person you knew to be capable of lying to demonstrate the first person could in fact lie. Rather you’d have to find some internal contradiction. Science can never prove the Bible is not what it claims to be for that very reason, we know science is fallible so when our current understanding of science contradicts something in the Bible it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that our scientific understanding is the one in error. This is precisely why I find it so troubling that many atheists today exalt science to the point of being straight up scientism.

Quote: Actually, the reason I missed you, infuriating as you sometimes are, is that at least you're polite and coherent, which many of your brethren cannot claim, and thus watching you spit out your bullshit is more like watching useful piles of bullshit being laid (that can later be turned into compost) as opposed to watching a hopeless tide of diarrhea leave a septic tank.

As a gardener, that's actually more flattering than it might sound.

That rather clever analogy could equally apply to you, and in fact it does to a certain extent from my perspective. Except I do not find you infuriating, but only because I do not take things on here that seriously.

Quote: I think I told you once that you could logic the sun away and it would still rise tomorrow. Come back when you have tangible, quantifiable evidence for your BS, Stat.

Logic the sun away (that would make a fairly clever lyric in a song)? I am not even sure what you mean by that, are you saying that logic does not in fact discern truth?
Why do you believe that all truth claims are tested by tangible and quantifiable evidence? Even you believe an entire host of claims that are not supported by evidence, but you require evidence in order to believe in God? That seems to be special pleading. What if science itself requires that God exists? Would that prove He existed?

(April 19, 2013 at 1:12 am)smax Wrote: Experience wouldn't even necessarily do it. Experiences can, and often are, delussions. I have no doubt that many of these charasmatic Christians experience the supernatural all the time, just like acid droppers do.

1. In order for someone to believe in the supernatural they must experience it firsthand.
2. In the cases where people experience the supernatural firsthand they are not actually experiencing the supernatural.

It looks like you’ve created a nice little vicious circle there.

Quote: No, the supernatural must be verifiable to be held with any regard.

Since you have already stated that you do not believe firsthand supernatural encounters are acceptable as verification, but since you have also asserted that you were open-minded on this subject before you arrived at your current conclusion, what form of verification would you accept (if you were indeed open-minded you must accept the possibility of some form of verification rather than ruling out the possibility of the supernatural ahead of time and then asserting that the supernatural doesn’t exist)?

Quote:Even if that were true, it wouldn't merit wild speculation about the supernatural, which brings us back to verification.

Scripture doesn’t practice wild speculation about the supernatural; rather it gives accounts and details of specific supernatural events that have occurred throughout our redemptive history.

Quote:
You are right. Both are inventions, but the creator invention is much more far fetched.

They are not both inventions; that’s merely one reason why the analogy fails. Why is the existence of God farfetched? Simply because you say it is?

Quote:I believe in what I can verify. So should you.

That’s quite the position to hold…

So you do not believe that your senses are generally reliable? You do not believe that your memory is generally reliable? You do not believe the laws of logic exist? You do not believe that the laws of nature we observe in the present will resemble the natural laws we will observe in the future? You do not believe you will wake up as yourself tomorrow? You do not believe that other people have minds? You do not believe you were ever born? You do not believe that you existed yesterday? You do not believe that you can reason from particular experiences to general predications?

How do you verify the statement, “I only believe in what I can verify”? Or do you not actually believe that statement is true since you cannot verify it?

Since none of these beliefs are verifiable it looks like you do not believe in a lot of things that everyone else does. In fact, if you do not believe that there will be regularity in natural law you’ve just rendered all of science impossible.

Quote:Not at all. I quoted him, but the merit is in the material itself, not the man.

Yes, and it’s not a logical statement.

Quote: With that, allow me to further educate you.

Please do.

Quote: When you quote someone, it's common courtesy to properly credit the quote instead of passsing it off as your own, which is plagiarism.

Then why didn’t you quote Carl Sagan since Christopher Hitchens stole that quote from him? Is it really appropriate to quote the plagiarist rather than the original source?

Quote: Sorry the name prevented the point from penetrating your skull.

No matter how hard you try, that condescending side of you always finds a way to creep to the surface doesn’t it? Or are you merely trying to perpetuate the stereotype of the condescending atheist?

Quote: 1. Splendid in appearance; grand:
2. Grand or noble in thought or deed; exalted.
3. Outstanding of its kind; superlative:

You did the very thing I told you not to do, that’s just the definition. What I want to know is how do you determine whether a claim is “splendid in appearance; grand”? Who makes this determination so we know which claims require magnificent proof (which is something you still haven’t defined) and which ones require merely regular proof?

Quote: Hey, I got an idea, let's talk about Christopher Hitchens some more!

You brought the hack up, not me.

Quote:understood perfectly what you were doing. You were faced with the harsh reality of a valid point, and you used a petty method of deflection to avoid actually addressing it.

Asking for a proper methodology for determining what a magnificent claim is and what the term magnificent proof even means is in your view “deflecting”? If you cannot back your claim up or even elaborate how a person can put it into practice, then I hardly think it qualifies as valid.

Quote:
Here lies the dead carcass of Big Foot. Study it, preserve it, put it in a musseum, do what you will. But this nearly century old legend is now a documentable part of history.

A dead animal carcass qualifies as a “magnificent proof”? How is that not merely a scientific discovery based on induction? I am beginning to believe that your little quote is exactly what I thought it was- a meaningless platitude. Not to mention it’s not even based in logic, there’s no logical requirement for a type of claim to have the same type of proof. You don’t hear people saying, “Emotional claims require emotional proofs!”, “Erroneous claims require erroneous proofs!”, or even “Material claims require material proofs (proofs are immaterial)!” I am sure it sounded great when Hitchens asserted it, but unfortunately like many things Hitchens asserted upon closer examination it was nothing more than flowery rhetoric.

Quote: Inductive reasoning has it's place, as does deductive reasoning. Unfortunately for you, that kind of reasoning whiped your god out a long time ago.

You have a deductive or inductive argument(s) that proves my God doesn’t exist? To say I am intrigued would be an understatement, please present me with it!

Quote: Can't wait to dive a little more into this one.

Neither can I!

Quote:Well, I've carefully considered both sides of the argument, so I consider my conclusions to have a much greater degree of merit. I can tell by your rather naive perspective that you've given no consideration to the possibility that you may be wrong about this.

If there is one thing this discussion has brought to light, it is that I am certainly not the naïve one in this conversation.

Case and point, you just asserted that you have carefully considered both sides of the argument; this seems to imply that there is neutral ground on which a person can stand in order to do this consideration from. Since you claim you are not naïve on such matters; then are you not fully aware that neutral ground on such matters is logically impossible? Why would you assert you carefully considered both sides of the argument when you were sophisticated enough to know that a person cannot possibly do this without assuming one of the two sides is correct ahead of time? Bewildering.

Quote: With that, allow me to warn you: when (or if) you do, your faith will progressively diminish until you eventually have none left. But that's a good thing. Reality is a good thing. The world needs more realists.

Now are you really going to claim you do not have any faith either?

Quote: I can't wait for you to join us.

I can’t wait for you to join us.

Quote:
I'd like to think this discussion is more than just a debate. I'd like to think that we are actually trying to accomplish something here. If that is the case, then obviously a closed mind is useless to the discussion.

An open mind is logically impossible because it assumes neutrality is possible. What are we trying to accomplish? I was never made purvey to our goal here!

(April 19, 2013 at 8:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 1. In order for someone to believe in the supernatural they must experience it firsthand.
2. In the cases where people experience the supernatural firsthand they are not actually experiencing the supernatural.

It looks like you’ve created a nice little vicious circle there.

Nice try, but I never asserted #1 and, therefore, the premise of #2 is faulty.

I have said, and maintainted that it is unreasonable, and dangerous, to believe in the supernatural without verification.

Quote:Since you have already stated that you do not believe firsthand supernatural encounters are acceptable as verification, but since you have also asserted that you were open-minded on this subject before you arrived at your current conclusion, what form of verification would you accept (if you were indeed open-minded you must accept the possibility of some form of verification rather than ruling out the possibility of the supernatural ahead of time and then asserting that the supernatural doesn’t exist)?

I gave you a perfect example of verification with my discovery of bigfoot analogy. Once again, however, I guess I must clarify the obvious.

The human mind can and does play tricks on people. That's why people see things that aren't there, hear voices, and imagine that they are capable of things that they clearly are not capable of.

Speaking of hearing voices, I've always wondered why people take orders from voices in their head, as many people have blamed horrible crimes on "voices" that instructed them to commit these acts. The idea of doing something merely because I've been told to makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Clearly, however, you would be one that disagrees.

Reasonable verification is simply some form of tangible proof.

As an example, a neighbor of mine recently claimed he saw a car speeding through the neighborhood in the middle of the night completely on fire. He was so convinced that he contacted the police and woke up a number of us neighbors to report this unusual event.

However, the police searched for evidence and found none. No physical evidence, no corroborating testimony, and not a single similar report anywhere in the area.

After the police had a lengthy discussion with my neighbor, he himself concluded that he must have imagined the whole thing despite the fact that it all seemed very real to him.

That's what responsible people do, they put their delussions to an evidentiary test. This type of response to amazing or supernatural event prevents a potentially far more dangerous level of psychosis from setting in.

Quote:Scripture doesn’t practice wild speculation about the supernatural; rather it gives accounts and details of specific supernatural events that have occurred throughout our redemptive history.

I will very easily prove this entire theory of yours to be false:

Joshua 10:13
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Clearly this event never happened, and even a delussional spiritual person, with some limited capacity to reason, would have to concede this.

This scripture assumes that the sun moves around the earth, which science has proven beyond debate is simply not the case. The story also fails to recognize the fact that the sun holding the same position in the sky would mean that the earth stopped spinning, and that would be cataclysmic.

Now that we know for a fact that this event could never have happened, we can also conclude that this story was invented around the speculation that the earth was the center of the Universe, and that everything in the sky was merely there to complement earth.

So there you have it: A bullshit story and wild speculation. No history involved.

Quote:They are not both inventions; that’s merely one reason why the analogy fails. Why is the existence of God farfetched? Simply because you say it is?

Because he cannot be verified? How is that still a point drilling on the outside of your skull?

Quote:That’s quite the position to hold…

Yeah, requiring proof is such a ridiculous standard to have.

Quote:You have a deductive or inductive argument(s) that proves my God doesn’t exist? To say I am intrigued would be an understatement, please present me with it!

Inductive:

Jesus "said" that he would return within a century.
He's 19 centuries overdue.
Jesus does not have the divine power he claimed to have.

Deductive:

The planet is 4.5 billion years old
The Bible proposes a world history of about 12000 years max.
Therefore, the god of the Bible is made up.

We could go on and on with this, as the Bible, the stories within it, and indeed the Christian concept of god, are all outdated and proven to be lies and plagiarisms.

Quote:If there is one thing this discussion has brought to light, it is that I am certainly not the naïve one in this conversation.

Says the guy who believes in Santa Clause... errr... I mean Jehova. Is it really your contention that praying to an invisible man isn't naive?

Really?

Quote:Case and point, you just asserted that you have carefully considered both sides of the argument; this seems to imply that there is neutral ground on which a person can stand in order to do this consideration from. Since you claim you are not naïve on such matters; then are you not fully aware that neutral ground on such matters is logically impossible? Why would you assert you carefully considered both sides of the argument when you were sophisticated enough to know that a person cannot possibly do this without assuming one of the two sides is correct ahead of time? Bewildering.

All non-sense. Not a single piece of sound logic in that entire assessment.

Quote:Now are you really going to claim you do not have any faith either?

Sure, I have faith, but it's based on logic and reason. I have faith that my daughter will perform well in sports, but I base that on the amount of preparation, focus, and in no small part, her track record.

Your faith, however, is loosely based on word of mouth and terribly inconsistent and impractical books.

Your faith is baseless. Mine is reasonable. Big difference.

Quote:I can’t wait for you to join us.

Rejoin, you mean, and that would be redundant. You, on the other hand, are well on your way to where I am. You invited that outcome the moment you thought it was a good idea to mix it up with Atheists.

Only a matter of time.

Quote:An open mind is logically impossible because it assumes neutrality is possible. What are we trying to accomplish? I was never made purvey to our goal here!

To help you with your delussion, of course. Duh!

(April 20, 2013 at 7:26 pm)smax Wrote: Nice try, but I never asserted #1 and, therefore, the premise of #2 is faulty.

Well you did assert that it must be verifiable, so how are you going to verify whether the supernatural exists or not?

Quote: I have said, and maintainted that it is unreasonable, and dangerous, to believe in the supernatural without verification.

There’s that word again, verification. If not firsthand experience then what are you meaning by verification?

Quote: I gave you a perfect example of verification with my discovery of bigfoot analogy. Once again, however, I guess I must clarify the obvious.

No, the discovery of a dead “squatch” is a firsthand experience and as you claimed above you are not talking about firsthand experience when you use the word verification; so I have every right to be a bit perplexed by what you are trying to say because it seems to be a bit contradictory.

Quote: The human mind can and does play tricks on people. That's why people see things that aren't there, hear voices, and imagine that they are capable of things that they clearly are not capable of.

Yes.

Quote: Clearly, however, you would be one that disagrees.

Where did I say anything about people doing what voices in their heads tell them to do? That’s quite the straw-man you’ve erected there.

Quote:

---

Reasonable verification is simply some form of tangible proof.

As an example, a neighbor of mine recently claimed he saw a car speeding through the neighborhood in the middle of the night completely on fire. He was so convinced that he contacted the police and woke up a number of us neighbors to report this unusual event.

However, the police searched for evidence and found none. No physical evidence, no corroborating testimony, and not a single similar report anywhere in the area.

After the police had a lengthy discussion with my neighbor, he himself concluded that he must have imagined the whole thing despite the fact that it all seemed very real to him.

That's what responsible people do, they put their delussions to an evidentiary test. This type of response to amazing or supernatural event prevents a potentially far more dangerous level of psychosis from setting in.

---

Since you have already established that sensory perception is not reliable, how do you know that everyone else is perceiving the lack of evidence for a burning car correctly and your neighbor was perceiving his visual evidence for a burning car incorrectly? Is this a majority rules type of situation? If the majority of the neighborhood believed they saw a burning car would that be enough evidence to believe one did in fact drive by?

Quote:I will very easily prove this entire theory of yours to be false:

Give it your best shot.

Quote:

Clearly this event never happened, and even a delussional spiritual person, with some limited capacity to reason, would have to concede this.

Ok, so that’s an assertion, we’ll see if you support it with anything.

Quote: This scripture assumes that the sun moves around the earth,

Where does scripture assume that? Simply because the verse uses geocentric language to describe the events that took place is somehow supposed to prove that the Bible assumes the Sun revolves around the Earth? The meteorologist on the local news did that last night when he told me what time the Sun rose and set yesterday, that in no way means that all (or any) meteorologists assume the Sun revolves around the Earth. This also seems to be ignoring the fact that absolute motion is a fiction, if someone wants to use the Earth as there reference frame for all motion they are certainly allowed to do that. When writing a book intended for an Earthly audience it makes complete sense to use geocentric descriptors. Not only this but the author of that passage obviously realized that Earth’s rotation was the cause of the sun and moon’s apparent movements around the Earth because even though the Israelites only needed for the Sun to stop moving the verses clearly states that both the Sun and Moon stopped moving which is consistent with a halting of the Earth’s rotation.

Quote: The story also fails to recognize the fact that the sun holding the same position in the sky would mean that the earth stopped spinning, and that would be cataclysmic.

I am sorry but that’s totally false. The Earth’s rotation slowing down uniformly in a matter of minutes would not be catastrophic for those on the Earth at all.

Quote: Now that we know for a fact that this event could never have happened, we can also conclude that this story was invented around the speculation that the earth was the center of the Universe, and that everything in the sky was merely there to complement earth.

You haven’t demonstrated anything even remotely close to this. There is no reason to believe that God could not have slowed the rotation of the Earth. Additionally there’s more historical support for the story- the Greeks have an account of a long day, the Maori people have an account of the sun being slowed before it rose, and the cultures of Mexico have an account of an extra-long night. These all add support to the story because cultures around the world would experience the single event differently based on their location.

Quote:Because he cannot be verified? How is that still a point drilling on the outside of your skull?

Sure He can.

Quote:Yeah, requiring proof is such a ridiculous standard to have.

No, but that’s not your position is it? You’re asking for “verification”, not “proof”, you’d have to be naïve to think those terms are synonymous.

I noticed you ignored my quite extensive list of things that I am sure you believe but cannot verify; that’s rather convenient.

Quote:Jesus "said" that he would return within a century.
He's 19 centuries overdue.
Jesus does not have the divine power he claimed to have.

Where did you get the idea that Jesus said he’d return within a century? I hope you are not confusing Jesus’ allusion to his transfiguration in Mark 9 with his future second coming… or are you referring to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24?

Quote: Deductive:

The planet is 4.5 billion years old
The Bible proposes a world history of about 12000 years max.
Therefore, the god of the Bible is made up.

That’s your deductive proof?

1. Since you have claimed you only believe in what is verifiable, how is the age of the Earth and therefore premise 1 verifiable?
2. Premise 2 is not accurate; the Bible proposes a world history of around 6,000 years, not 12,000.
3. How does your conclusion logically follow from your two premises? Your syllogism is invalid because it introduces elements (God) that are not contained in either premise. That’s not allowed in logic, so you’re going to have to do some revision, we cannot determine if your syllogism is sound until it is first at least structurally valid.

Quote: We could go on and on with this, as the Bible, the stories within it, and indeed the Christian concept of god, are all outdated and proven to be lies and plagiarisms.

Truth doesn’t get “outdated”, that’s a fallacious appeal to novelty.

Quote:Says the guy who believes in Santa Clause... errr... I mean Jehova. Is it really your contention that praying to an invisible man isn't naive?

It’s Santa Claus not Santa Clause and Jehovah not Jehova; if you’re going to make fallacious appeals to ridicule at least take the time to spell correctly. God’s not a man either, so you also misrepresented my position by using a question begging epithet.

Quote:All non-sense. Not a single piece of sound logic in that entire assessment.

Really?

P1. Christians believe the claims made by scripture.
P2. Scripture claims that no neutral ground exists.
C. Therefore, Christians do not believe neutral ground exists.


P1. Christians do not believe neutral ground exists.
P2. Smax claims neutral ground exists.
C. Therefore smax is beginning with the position that Christians are wrong about the non-existence of neutrality.
P1. A person is neutral when they do not take a position ahead of time.
P2. Smax is taking a position ahead of time (namely that Christians (and scripture) are both wrong about the non-existence of neutrality.)
C. Therefore, smax is not being neutral.


Neutrality on this issue is logically impossible because one must take the position that scripture is fallible in order to assert neutrality is possible (because if scripture were infallible neutrality would be impossible because scripture claims it is impossible), which is taking a position on the issue and is by definition not being neutral!

Quote:Your faith, however, is loosely based on word of mouth and terribly inconsistent and impractical books.

No, it’s based on the infallible word of the creator God, I’ll take that faith any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Quote: Your faith is baseless. Mine is reasonable. Big difference.

I thought you said you didn’t believe in things that are not verifiable, so since you now say you believe that your daughter will do well in sports in the future, what are you using in the present to verify future events? Or are you going to have to alter your claim that you only believe that which is verifiable?

Quote:Rejoin, you mean, and that would be redundant. You, on the other hand, are well on your way to where I am. You invited that outcome the moment you thought it was a good idea to mix it up with Atheists.

I have been mixing It up with atheists for years, it’s only strengthened my faith in God.

Quote:To help you with your delussion, of course. Duh!

I was trying to help you with yours.

Slater,

It occurs to me that all of the same points are being made and missed here again and again. I never claimed there was any truly nuetral ground, just that both points of view could be examined carefully. I'm not surprised that you reject that notion, however, as it seriously undermines the validity of your religion. However, I was Christian, at least I professed and tried to be. Now I am an Atheist. Many Atheists traveled that same path. Therefore, it is safe to say that both points of view can be carefully considered.

What is most apparent in this exchange here is your refussal to focus on actual subject matter. I use the word magnificent, you need clarification. I use the word verify, you need clarification. I say I've carefully considered both sides, you need clarification.

This pattern of yours reveals that you do not feel strongly enough about your position to argue it's merits, therefore, you use petty deflections to avoid facing the subject at hand.

At times when you've been cornered into actually stating your position, things like this come out:

Quote:No, it’s based on the infallible word of the creator God, I’ll take that faith any day of the week and twice on Sundays

And, while that may sound good to you, it's a useless piece of gibberish to anyone with any sense of objective logic.

So, what exactly are we debating here? As far as our conversation: nothing. Nothing at all. I'm interested in an actual discussion and debate about the Christian perspective and it's merits, and your interested in semantics and spelling names right.

If you decide you want to dispense with the deflections and actually tackle the subject matter, I'm game. In fact, it's why I'm here. But it seems like a fairly poor use of my time to try and explain myself to a seemingly infinite degree every time I make a very clear point.

That said, I was Christian at one point as well (I've grown up since then) so I understand how bored you are, and how much more meaningfull meaningless things are from your perspective. But it's not just your time we are utlilizing here, so keep that in mind.

(April 22, 2013 at 11:08 pm)smax Wrote: Slater,

It occurs to me that all of the same points are being made and missed here again and again. I never claimed there was any truly nuetral ground, just that both points of view could be examined carefully. I'm not surprised that you reject that notion, however, as it seriously undermines the validity of your religion. However, I was Christian, at least I professed and tried to be. Now I am an Atheist. Many Atheists traveled that same path. Therefore, it is safe to say that both points of view can be carefully considered.

If there is no neutral ground (which as I demonstrated there cannot be) then careful consideration is not possible. A person either has to assume that scripture is the infallible word of God ahead of time or assume it is not, I am just intellectually honest enough to admit I am in the former group. Anyone who claims it is not the infallible word of God is in the latter group.

Quote: What is most apparent in this exchange here is your refussal to focus on actual subject matter. I use the word magnificent, you need clarification. I use the word verify, you need clarification. I say I've carefully considered both sides, you need clarification.

I think what’s apparent is your reluctance or inability to properly define your terms and standards. I ask you for a standard for determining what a magnificent claim is, you provide me with none. I ask you for the difference between a magnificent proof and inductive/deductive proofs and you provide me with an example of an inductive proof. I ask you for clarification on exactly what you mean by verify (since you apparently do not mean firsthand experience/observation) and you are unable to clarify. I just do not think you have properly thought a lot of these things through.

Quote: This pattern of yours reveals that you do not feel strongly enough about your position to argue it's merits, therefore, you use petty deflections to avoid facing the subject at hand.

Quite the contrary, I feel very strongly about my position, and the fact that no atheist seems to be able to even present a logically coherent challenge to my position only makes me feel more strongly about the consistency and coherency of the Biblical view of reality.

Quote:
And, while that may sound good to you, it's a useless piece of gibberish to anyone with any sense of objective logic.

Why?

Quote: So, what exactly are we debating here? As far as our conversation: nothing. Nothing at all. I'm interested in an actual discussion and debate about the Christian perspective and it's merits, and your interested in semantics and spelling names right.

So now we are debating again? If you’re interested in the Christian perspective I’d be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. However, it appears you were more interested in taking personal jabs at me, which is why I had to point out your misspellings because they detracted from your insults.

Quote: If you decide you want to dispense with the deflections and actually tackle the subject matter, I'm game. In fact, it's why I'm here. But it seems like a fairly poor use of my time to try and explain myself to a seemingly infinite degree every time I make a very clear point.

You’ve yet to make a clear point, you merely produced a multitude of the typical atheistic assertions and when you were challenged to define or clarify what you were even referring to you seemed unable to do so. I’d love to continue the discussion but if you continue to behave irrationally I am going to have to point it out to you, what’s the point of having a conversation if we are allowed to be irrational?

Quote: That said, I was Christian at one point as well (I've grown up since then) so I understand how bored you are, and how much more meaningfull meaningless things are from your perspective. But it's not just your time we are utlilizing here, so keep that in mind.

You see, it’s these sorts of comments that make it very hard to take you seriously. Implying that all Christians are somehow childish or ignorant is itself a ridiculous and rather childish position to adhere to. You jumped into this discussion assuming that I was some sort of buffoon who didn’t possess any philosophical sophistication or knowledge of epistemology. This is not my first rodeo, I have heard everything you’ve presented to this pint at least five times before on here and I am well aware of how to poke holes in all of it. I like you (almost as much as I like Queen and Shell B, but not quite :-P), I think you’re a decent enough fellow, but I think you’d be well-served by being bit more respectful of your opponent at times, but that’s just my opinion.

(April 19, 2013 at 8:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 1. A miracle, in the Biblical sense is by definition a violation of natural law, it’s a supernatural event; so when you say that science (which deals only with natural laws) has demonstrated that virgins don’t give birth, men don’t turn water into whine, men don’t walk on water, donkeys don’t talk, and axe heads don’t float you’re really only proving the Bible’s point. Those events were evidence of God’s power because they violated natural law. It appears that it is actually you who is trying to compare apples and oranges, or namely the natural and the supernatural.

But magic remains magic even if you give it the fancier name of miracle. They are still tricks even if you call them supernatural. Apollonius of Tyana did magic as did Simon Magus. Once you admit magic you can't pick and choose. And as almost all the magics worked by Jesus are the same kinds worked on god TV I do not see why you are impressed. Again why do magicians hate amputees?

We are back to your belief in what was written by unknown persons who cannot be distinguished from compulsive liars for claiming common tricks require the intervention of a god.

---

Speaking of miracles, the miracles of Fatima appear in no contemporary newspaper and when questioned years later no resident recalled any such event. This is odd as when the story appears three years later in a publication by a priest there were many reporters present and thousands of people came miles around.

Who says miracles still don't occur in the old fashioned way?

(April 23, 2013 at 6:23 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: But magic remains magic even if you give it the fancier name of miracle. They are still tricks even if you call them supernatural. Apollonius of Tyana did magic as did Simon Magus. Once you admit magic you can't pick and choose. And as almost all the magics worked by Jesus are the same kinds worked on god TV I do not see why you are impressed. Again why do magicians hate amputees?

The miraculous accounts detailed in scripture are not magic.

1. God upholds His creation in a uniform and predictable manner (Genesis 1 and 8).
2. At certain points in our redemptive history God alters the manner in which He upholds His creation. This is what we call a miracle; magic has nothing to do with it.