Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 13, 2013 at 8:46 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Oh, so I'm lacking evidence, but you don't know what evidence is needed for conviction? Some help you are; it sounds more like you just don't like that atheists don't accept claims of divinity that aren't in the form of empirical evidence. But since you asked nicely, simply put, the Bible is evidence for Yahweh the same way LOTR is evidence for Gandalf. If you don't accept that, then that's your own personal problem.
Actually that’s wrong. The Bible would be evidence for Yahweh the same way the Lord of The Rings books are evidence for JRR Tolkien.
Quote: Besides, I never said you couldn't use the Bible as your evidence; I simply said that you shouldn't because, well, you and others that proceed in this manner will get laughed at. Oh, and it doesn't get you anywhere in trying to convince an atheist that there's a god.
We shouldn’t do it because it will get us laughed at? What kind of argument is that? That’s merely a fallacious appeal to consequence. Secondly, the measure of a sound argument is not its ability to convince others. People are often unconvinced by sound arguments and are convinced by invalid arguments. Do you have anything better?
Quote: And that's a fallacy called argument from personal incredulity; he can't imagine it'd be any other way, so he presumes creation.
Where did he say that? He merely said he thought creation was more likely than a naturalistic explanation. I think it is more likely that pigs cannot fly than they can, that is not a fallacious argument from incredulity. If you’re going to accuse someone of committing a fallacy make sure you understand the fallacy first.
Quote:Linguistic relics do not an argument make.
Tell Doubting Thomas that, he’s the one who seemed to think it was relevant.
Quote:Stop. Read the bold in Esq's quote. If RNA can come to exist in any condition (we're talking countless variables), then it's proven.
Then what is proven?
Quote: The exact conditions of our own planet at the time of the first RNA sequences will never be available for study, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Again, I repeat, it doesn't matter. Why do you think we say that it doesn't matter?
It does in fact matter if you’re trying to demonstrate that RNA could spontaneously generate on the early Earth. It’s embarrassing how lacks your standards are when dealing with something that you desperately want to be true.
Quote:It is different. Know why? Because we don't say that.
Actually Whateverist just did Toots (“please do post some evidence for thinking RNA cannot spontaneously exist”). Whateverist asked him to prove a negative.
Quote:What does the admittance or denial of a god have anything to do with studying or measuring these things?
I was told that denying God’s existence opened up the door to questioning all things; can you point me to any well-known atheist thinkers who question any of the previously mentioned things?
Quote:And a fine specimen of this brand of thinking you are, SW. Thank you for showing us as much.
You’re welcome.
Quote: I did? Never? If I didn't, then there's nothing to be worried about.
Trust me, I am not worried.
Quote: Are you afraid that what I posted is going to take flight and infect the minds of those who never thought of the Bible as merely a claim?
Nope.
Quote: Newsflash! It wasn't originally my idea! In fact, so many atheists before me have stated just as much.
Yes, atheists love making assertions.
Quote: Is that just a coincidence, or is it possible there's actually something of note in what they are saying?
Not a coincidence at all, I would expect similar irrational minds to arrive at similar irrational conclusions.
Quote:[quote] Do you not accept that any of the things he said were true?
Yup, all of them.
Quote: If not, then stop arguing, but if you do, then is it because he is using this circular logic you claim him to be, or is it because the evidence he has provided (and, indeed, evidence was definitely provided) was sufficient.
Neither, it’s because I am a Christian Theist. We live in a Universe created by a rational God who likewise created us. It makes sense for all of these things to be true in my conceptual scheme. Of course as an atheist he’s not allowed to appeal to my theistic conceptual scheme so he’s going to have to figure it out on his own.
Quote: I vote for the sufficiency of evidence in his argument. Anyone else agree?
You believe his circular reasoning was sufficient? It’s not surprising you are completely content when atheists use such reasoning but object (ironically in this very thread) when you think that theists are using such reasoning. Playing the game by two different sets of rules I see.
Quote:I believe it is the words of men.
So you claim, but your actions indicate otherwise.
Quote: What the fuck are you on about here?
You.
Quote: Doesn't your book that you hold to so dearly tell you that lying is bad?
It does.
Quote: If you're going to misrepresent the countless individuals that give fuck all about the Bible and whether or not you claim it's the word of god, then you need to reread the forum rules.
I have misrepresented nothing and I follow the forum rules. The Bible says you know that it is the word of God. Am I going to believe it or you?
Quote:You are. Why? Because, based on this comment, you apparently don't like it when people state facts.
What fact what stated? I saw a lot of opinions.
(December 14, 2013 at 1:34 am)Esquilax Wrote: Not with regards to living beings, because we already have demonstrable, solid proof that such life evolved, which rather rattles the basis of the claim that every complex thing requires a creative agent.
That’s a non-sequitur; the complex system changing over time does not negate the need for a creative agent. Computer operating systems undergo mutative changes over time and yet they still require creative agents.
(December 14, 2013 at 6:09 am)Duck Wrote: It is totally different. You cannot equate a book and your eyesight. They are not analogous in the slightest. And you can use your other senses to verify what your eyes are telling you. That would leave the only possible fault at your brain. The two are different.
We are not talking specifically about eyesight we are talking about our sensory perception as a whole which you have yet to justify in a non-circular manner. Secondly, using other senses to justify the reliability of a person’s eyesight does not even work because we know that people will experience cases of sensory deception where all of the senses are deceived in a consistent manner (i.e. Old Hag Syndrome). The problem here is that you are objecting when Christians supposedly do the exact same thing you are doing here.
Quote:
No, again this is a false equality. You can easily operate without the assumption that God exists, as many billions of people do now, and have done in the past.
That’s incorrect; everyone knows God exists, whether implicitly or explicitly.
Quote: You can certainly operate without believing the content of the bible, and well over half the world's population do so as we speak.
There’s a difference between being able to operate without believing something is true and being able to operate without something actually being true. Whether or not you believe scripture is true is irrelevant. Its reliability is just as essential to our existence as the reliability of our senses is.
Quote: You cannot do anything if your senses do not report reality. I go back to my previous; you will fall down stairs all the time and walk into things. Humans would never have got here without reliable senses. How would we find food? How do animals find food? Because our senses are reliable.
If God did not exist none of this would be possible either so I do not see your point.
Quote: There is a mountain, absolute mountain, of evidence that our senses are reliable and among them is the fact we are here and find food and water every day.
How do you know we do those things? Do you perceive doing this using your senses? More circularity.
Quote:
Again, this is a false equality (and the first bit is complete shit). I think therefore I am, so I know I am here by virtue of the fact that I am thinking.
I think therefore I am is a circular argument.
Quote: If you are unwilling to grant the assumption that we exist, then neither does the bible (which you are relying on your senses to detect I might add) and it therefore cannot be the word of anyone or thing.
You’re completely missing the point. Within my conceptual scheme it makes sense for us to be able to trust our senses. The problem is that you cannot use my conceptual scheme because you are an atheist. You’re going to have to justify your beliefs in accordance with your own conceptual scheme and thus far you have not been able to do so without invoking circularity.
Quote:
I know because I think about it. You are being totally absurd here.
Absurd? I am not the one using my memory to try and justify the reliability of my memory here.
Quote: I am NOT relying on memory. I am relying on a recording, namely what I write down.
How do you know that you are the one who wrote that down? Do you remember writing it down?
Quote: People with short-term memory loss write everthing [sic] down. A list on a bit of paper isn't memory. Again, false equality.
We’re not merely talking about short term memory here; we are talking about all memory. Using a list that you remember writing does not justify your memory.
Quote:
No, and I'm getting tired of writing the words false equality.
Then stop writing them. They are not doing you any good anyways.
Quote: The axioms underlying logic are TOTALLY DIFFERENT to the bible.
They are still axiomatic so it was a fair analogy.
Quote: They contain principles, not claims. Such as the principle of non-contradiction. Perhaps you should do some reading, maybe try and understand the subject (sorry, this is not covered in the Bible.)
The Bible contains principles as well; perhaps you should read it sometime. God’s existence is a fundamental principle, God’s love is a fundamental principle, Man being created in the image of God is a fundamental principle, and so on.
Quote:
NO YOU MORON. I am still alive, ipso facto I have not died in a car crash.
How do you know you are still alive? You perceive that you are still alive? You thought that you were up to the challenge so do not get fussy with me when we find that you fall short. Calling me names may make you feel better but it does not help defend your position any.
Quote:
I have provided evidence, it just doesn't fit with your view of the world so you ignored it.
No I value rationality so I disregarded it. If Christians are not allowed to use circularity then you sir are not allowed to either.
Quote:OK, one more time. Using touch to verify your vision is not circular.
Then neither is using the New Testament to verify the Old Testament.
Quote: Using a written list to verify memory is not circular.
If you have to remember who wrote the list it is.
Quote: These things are in no way analogous to believing a book of crazy shit.
Question-begging epithets aside, they are.
Quote:
WHAT???? I don't and HOW THE HELL COULD YOU KNOW IF THIS WAS TRUE???? This is a wild claim even by your standards.
Easy, He who knows everything and who cannot lie revealed it to us (Romans 1). You do not know everything and are perfectly capable of lying so why should I believe you over Him? It’d be crazy for me to.
Quote:I have demonstrated that I am not using circular reasoning.
By using your senses to verify your senses and using your memory to verify your memory? Right.
Quote: You are displaying a lack of logic, reasonableness and factual basis.
…says the guy who apparently is completely incapable of spotting circularity in his own arguments.
Quote:Authority of all people? What does that even mean?
It means all people are subject to what it says.
Quote:
I have, you have just ignored it (and ignored the fact that your arguments about the bible RELY TOTALLY UPON THE SENSES)
My eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because…
Around and around you go!
Quote:No, scripture makes no sense in the reality we live in.
How so?
Quote: Not whining, just disappointed that morons like you continue to have the ability to shape the future of humanity, even in a little way. How many more gay men (or other such 'abominations' according to you) will suffer, how many people will die because of your barbarism?
My barbarism? You must have me confused with someone else.
(December 14, 2013 at 9:20 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: We could, if there were no examples of specifically complex operating systems that don't require creative agents, but our disagreement is that biologists think we have such examples and you don't.
Not all biologists think that. We’ve never observed one to arise without a creative agent so I believe the empirical evidence supports my position.
Quote: However, my point was more along the lines of having only one example of a universe whose origin we don't fully understand, in induction, if we had many universes made by creative agents, we could induce that this one is, too.
Sure, but the Universe is not totally unique. It does seem to be a specified complex operating system with laws of operation and functionality. Every other such system is the product of a creative mind. I do not believe it is unreasonable to therefore argue that the Universe is also the product of a creative mind.
Quote: It's an informal fallacy. The form is valid, but the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. And it reminds me of this:
I am not seeing how it is begging the question so you’ll have to be more specific.
Quote: If I am rich, I am Bill Gates.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.
I think it’s more akin to…
If The adventures of Huckleberry Finn exists, then Mark Twain also had to exist The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn exists, therefore Mark Twain had to exist.
Which does seem right.
(December 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Chas Wrote: Meh. It's not about opinions.
They don't discuss - it's only the appearance of discussion. They repeat the same shit over and over, never actually listening, never actually learning.
They're just less obvious than, say, DOS. But they are no different in substance.
From my perspective I could say the very same thing about many atheists on here. Do you know how many times I have seen the, “God is a big meanie face!” argument on here? The difference between you and me is that you won’t see me wasting everyone’s time whining about it or lobbying for banning anyone who follows the rules from the forum. Your attempts at censorship have been noted.
(December 15, 2013 at 11:41 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: You mean like this fellow?
You mean to tell me that if you want a transitional form you merely have an artist draw you a picture and then exclaim, “Voila!!!”?
Well here's an Oviraptor without feathers...Voila!
I think the point has been lost. I am not currently proposing scientific evidence for creation I am proposing the evidence for evolution is not scientific. Saying things like "what makes you think that the conditions of earth today at all match the conditions on a prebiotic earth? Because I'll give you a free tip right now: they do not." is not scientific evidence. To say that science explains everything through observable and experimental evidence and follows certain unbreakable laws to make it trustworthy, that is until it makes what you believe impossible without throwing out those very laws that science is built upon, again makes your argument completely unscientific. Any hypothesis that breaks the laws of science would be easily rejectable based upon that criteria alone. Again my problem is that hypotheses are being taught as theories and theories as laws without respect to the scientific method. So what if the theory of evolution violates certain scientific laws, we'll just say those laws didn't exist at certain times and then existed later, whatever suits our theories. This is not science, it is using a disprovable hypothesis to prove a theory.
If I had a hypothesis that stated that mixing sodium with chloride would yield sodium chloride I would test it. I would mix sodium and chloride and get sodium chloride and if I was able to repeat this experiment again and again observing the results and it always became sodium chloride you would allow me to change the hypothesis into a theory and perhaps a law. If I were to say to you that when I mix sodium and chloride I get water you would say there's no way. Then I would say sure it does, you have no idea how elements reacted together billions of years ago when sodium and chloride through the use of an energy source that is no longer available today were able to shed protons and electrons, change molecular shape and become hydrogen and oxygen and thus create water. You would correctly reject it as science. You may say that it's possible, that it's a theory, but not a theory as science defines a theory, a theory as in anything's possible.
"I've never seen it, therefore it's impossible" is a perfectly valid scientific statement. It must be observable to be scientific. You can make a hypothesis that something is possible but until you prove it according to the scientific method it is not possible.
Here's what it boils down to. Our criteria for proof is different. Yours is science, so be scientific. Mine is faith so I will be faithful. It's not science or God. Science is a means by which we explain the things that are happening around us. It may be a piece of the knowledge God uses to govern the natural world. My faith does not require scientific proof that is why it is called faith.
If you would like some scientific evidence there are men far more knowledgable on the subject than I but you could look into: In Siberia Russia (in the Tundra) there have been found at least 5 million elephant remains frozen solid in mud hundreds of feet thick. Some of the elephants are carried out as the great Russian rivers the Ob and the Yenisey slash through the tundra on the way to the Arctic Ocean. It has been found they (the elephants) had no erector muscles that would have protected them from Arctic weather. Some also have perfectly preserved tropical plant material in their stomachs. They were semi-tropical animals. They were quick frozen. A wind chill factor of 190 degrees below zero would be required to quick freeze these elephants. They were frozen, then covered in mud, then covered and buried in ice. While not of creation, here is some empirical evidence for the flood.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
But magic does not carry a lot of weight around here. And when you claim that your invisible sky-daddy poofed everthing into existence because he got bored one day, you are relying on magic. There is no evidence for any gods concocted by the minds of humans and that includes your version.
Science may make errors but at least it progresses. It does not claim to have all the answers and threaten to burn at the stake any who dare to question.
(December 17, 2013 at 1:38 am)orangebox21 Wrote: I think the point has been lost. I am not currently proposing scientific evidence for creation
That's part of the problem: you can't add negatives together and come up with positive evidence for your claim. Even if you were absolutely right, and you're not, the best you can produce here is a mystery, not evidence for creation. You're not going to get anywhere by just poking holes in the legitimate science.
Quote: I am proposing the evidence for evolution is not scientific.
Quote:Saying things like "what makes you think that the conditions of earth today at all match the conditions on a prebiotic earth? Because I'll give you a free tip right now: they do not." is not scientific evidence.
Yes, actually, it is: let's just leave aside the huge impact that life has had on the planet, we know that planets form the actual physical planet first, with the atmosphere and so on coming later. It's just simple logistics; things were different on a prebiotic planet, and those conditions were what led to life forming.
Quote:To say that science explains everything through observable and experimental evidence and follows certain unbreakable laws to make it trustworthy, that is until it makes what you believe impossible without throwing out those very laws that science is built upon, again makes your argument completely unscientific.
Clearly, someone isn't familiar with the concept of indirect evidence. Bit of an eye roller, but I'll learn you some knowledge: the observable evidence that we have now can lead us to make certain determinations about the past even if we weren't there to observe it. The favorite example is Pluto; we haven't known the former planet existed for long enough for it to complete a full orbital cycle, but we know how long that orbital cycle is because of observations and evidence.
When I say that the conditions of earth were different before life emerged, yes, we weren't there to see it. But, we can take evidence from stars and other observations around us that lead us to certain conclusions.
Quote: Any hypothesis that breaks the laws of science would be easily rejectable based upon that criteria alone. Again my problem is that hypotheses are being taught as theories and theories as laws without respect to the scientific method. So what if the theory of evolution violates certain scientific laws, we'll just say those laws didn't exist at certain times and then existed later, whatever suits our theories. This is not science, it is using a disprovable hypothesis to prove a theory.
You not understanding the determinations used within these theories does not mean those theories are invalid science. It means you have a profound misunderstanding that, so far, you don't seem to feel any need to correct.
Quote:If I had a hypothesis that stated that mixing sodium with chloride would yield sodium chloride I would test it. I would mix sodium and chloride and get sodium chloride and if I was able to repeat this experiment again and again observing the results and it always became sodium chloride you would allow me to change the hypothesis into a theory and perhaps a law. If I were to say to you that when I mix sodium and chloride I get water you would say there's no way. Then I would say sure it does, you have no idea how elements reacted together billions of years ago when sodium and chloride through the use of an energy source that is no longer available today were able to shed protons and electrons, change molecular shape and become hydrogen and oxygen and thus create water. You would correctly reject it as science. You may say that it's possible, that it's a theory, but not a theory as science defines a theory, a theory as in anything's possible.
And if I were to then show you the best guesses made by science based on real evidence that show that the conditions have changed? Like this, for instance? And this is all beside the point because my initial contention was that simply assuming that, because we don't see abiogenesis happening now the theory is debunked is fallacious, because things were different in the past. Again, you fall victim to the argument from ignorance.
Quote:"I've never seen it, therefore it's impossible" is a perfectly valid scientific statement.
No. The correct statement is "I haven't seen it, therefore I haven't seen it." Nobody had ever seen a round fucking earth for hundreds of years, that didn't mean it was impossible. Nobody had seen a man fly, but we've done that! Every last scientific discovery in the history of mankind has been done exactly in spite of the idea that not seeing something means it's impossible, and that alone should demonstrate how fallacious that argument is, but let me do something else too: I've never seen anything created out of nothing, so therefore it's impossible.
Still wishing to proclaim that a valid syllogism, champ?
Quote: It must be observable to be scientific. You can make a hypothesis that something is possible but until you prove it according to the scientific method it is not possible.
Except that you're wrong in your premise that the only things that are scientific are things that you can currently see. Clearly you've never heard of taking educated guesses based on incomplete evidence.
Quote:Here's what it boils down to. Our criteria for proof is different. Yours is science, so be scientific. Mine is faith so I will be faithful. It's not science or God. Science is a means by which we explain the things that are happening around us. It may be a piece of the knowledge God uses to govern the natural world. My faith does not require scientific proof that is why it is called faith.
Then your position is by definition irrational, and cannot be rationally justified. Similarly, you can't use creation as evidence of anything, if your support for the idea of creation is, um, faith. Cool, we're done here.
Quote:If you would like some scientific evidence there are men far more knowledgable on the subject than I but you could look into: In Siberia Russia (in the Tundra) there have been found at least 5 million elephant remains frozen solid in mud hundreds of feet thick. Some of the elephants are carried out as the great Russian rivers the Ob and the Yenisey slash through the tundra on the way to the Arctic Ocean. It has been found they (the elephants) had no erector muscles that would have protected them from Arctic weather. Some also have perfectly preserved tropical plant material in their stomachs. They were semi-tropical animals. They were quick frozen. A wind chill factor of 190 degrees below zero would be required to quick freeze these elephants. They were frozen, then covered in mud, then covered and buried in ice. While not of creation, here is some empirical evidence for the flood.
The real issue here is not disproving evolution, it is proving that the universe is only 6000 years old.
Another goal that the creationist fucktards have abjectly failed at.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
December 17, 2013 at 7:36 am (This post was last modified: December 17, 2013 at 7:39 am by Dragonetti.)
(December 16, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
[quote='BadWriterSparty' pid='562853' dateline='1386982015']
Oh, so I'm lacking evidence, but you don't know what evidence is needed for conviction? Some help you are; it sounds more like you just don't like that atheists don't accept claims of divinity that aren't in the form of empirical evidence. But since you asked nicely, simply put, the Bible is evidence for Yahweh the same way LOTR is evidence for Gandalf. If you don't accept that, then that's your own personal problem.
Actually that’s wrong. The Bible would be evidence for Yahweh the same way the Lord of The Rings books are evidence for JRR Tolkien.
Quote: Besides, I never said you couldn't use the Bible as your evidence; I simply said that you shouldn't because, well, you and others that proceed in this manner will get laughed at. Oh, and it doesn't get you anywhere in trying to convince an atheist that there's a god.
We shouldn’t do it because it will get us laughed at? What kind of argument is that? That’s merely a fallacious appeal to consequence. Secondly, the measure of a sound argument is not its ability to convince others. People are often unconvinced by sound arguments and are convinced by invalid arguments. Do you have anything better?
Quote: And that's a fallacy called argument from personal incredulity; he can't imagine it'd be any other way, so he presumes creation.
Where did he say that? He merely said he thought creation was more likely than a naturalistic explanation. I think it is more likely that pigs cannot fly than they can, that is not a fallacious argument from incredulity. If you’re going to accuse someone of committing a fallacy make sure you understand the fallacy first.
Quote:Linguistic relics do not an argument make.
Tell Doubting Thomas that, he’s the one who seemed to think it was relevant.
Quote:Stop. Read the bold in Esq's quote. If RNA can come to exist in any condition (we're talking countless variables), then it's proven.
Then what is proven?
Quote: The exact conditions of our own planet at the time of the first RNA sequences will never be available for study, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Again, I repeat, it doesn't matter. Why do you think we say that it doesn't matter?
It does in fact matter if you’re trying to demonstrate that RNA could spontaneously generate on the early Earth. It’s embarrassing how lacks your standards are when dealing with something that you desperately want to be true.
Quote:It is different. Know why? Because we don't say that.
Actually Whateverist just did Toots (“please do post some evidence for thinking RNA cannot spontaneously exist”). Whateverist asked him to prove a negative.
Quote:What does the admittance or denial of a god have anything to do with studying or measuring these things?
I was told that denying God’s existence opened up the door to questioning all things; can you point me to any well-known atheist thinkers who question any of the previously mentioned things?
Quote:And a fine specimen of this brand of thinking you are, SW. Thank you for showing us as much.
You’re welcome.
Quote: I did? Never? If I didn't, then there's nothing to be worried about.
Trust me, I am not worried.
Quote: Are you afraid that what I posted is going to take flight and infect the minds of those who never thought of the Bible as merely a claim?
Nope.
Quote: Newsflash! It wasn't originally my idea! In fact, so many atheists before me have stated just as much.
Yes, atheists love making assertions.
Quote: Is that just a coincidence, or is it possible there's actually something of note in what they are saying?
Not a coincidence at all, I would expect similar irrational minds to arrive at similar irrational conclusions.
Quote:[quote] Do you not accept that any of the things he said were true?
Yup, all of them.
Quote: If not, then stop arguing, but if you do, then is it because he is using this circular logic you claim him to be, or is it because the evidence he has provided (and, indeed, evidence was definitely provided) was sufficient.
Neither, it’s because I am a Christian Theist. We live in a Universe created by a rational God who likewise created us. It makes sense for all of these things to be true in my conceptual scheme. Of course as an atheist he’s not allowed to appeal to my theistic conceptual scheme so he’s going to have to figure it out on his own.
Quote: I vote for the sufficiency of evidence in his argument. Anyone else agree?
You believe his circular reasoning was sufficient? It’s not surprising you are completely content when atheists use such reasoning but object (ironically in this very thread) when you think that theists are using such reasoning. Playing the game by two different sets of rules I see.
Quote:I believe it is the words of men.
So you claim, but your actions indicate otherwise.
Quote: What the fuck are you on about here?
You.
Quote: Doesn't your book that you hold to so dearly tell you that lying is bad?
It does.
Quote: If you're going to misrepresent the countless individuals that give fuck all about the Bible and whether or not you claim it's the word of god, then you need to reread the forum rules.
I have misrepresented nothing and I follow the forum rules. The Bible says you know that it is the word of God. Am I going to believe it or you?
Quote:You are. Why? Because, based on this comment, you apparently don't like it when people state facts.
What fact what stated? I saw a lot of opinions.
(December 14, 2013 at 1:34 am)Esquilax Wrote: Not with regards to living beings, because we already have demonstrable, solid proof that such life evolved, which rather rattles the basis of the claim that every complex thing requires a creative agent.
That’s a non-sequitur; the complex system changing over time does not negate the need for a creative agent. Computer operating systems undergo mutative changes over time and yet they still require creative agents.
(December 14, 2013 at 6:09 am)Duck Wrote: It is totally different. You cannot equate a book and your eyesight. They are not analogous in the slightest. And you can use your other senses to verify what your eyes are telling you. That would leave the only possible fault at your brain. The two are different.
We are not talking specifically about eyesight we are talking about our sensory perception as a whole which you have yet to justify in a non-circular manner. Secondly, using other senses to justify the reliability of a person’s eyesight does not even work because we know that people will experience cases of sensory deception where all of the senses are deceived in a consistent manner (i.e. Old Hag Syndrome). The problem here is that you are objecting when Christians supposedly do the exact same thing you are doing here.
Quote:
No, again this is a false equality. You can easily operate without the assumption that God exists, as many billions of people do now, and have done in the past.
That’s incorrect; everyone knows God exists, whether implicitly or explicitly.
Quote: You can certainly operate without believing the content of the bible, and well over half the world's population do so as we speak.
There’s a difference between being able to operate without believing something is true and being able to operate without something actually being true. Whether or not you believe scripture is true is irrelevant. Its reliability is just as essential to our existence as the reliability of our senses is.
Quote: You cannot do anything if your senses do not report reality. I go back to my previous; you will fall down stairs all the time and walk into things. Humans would never have got here without reliable senses. How would we find food? How do animals find food? Because our senses are reliable.
If God did not exist none of this would be possible either so I do not see your point.
Quote: There is a mountain, absolute mountain, of evidence that our senses are reliable and among them is the fact we are here and find food and water every day.
How do you know we do those things? Do you perceive doing this using your senses? More circularity.
Quote:
Again, this is a false equality (and the first bit is complete shit). I think therefore I am, so I know I am here by virtue of the fact that I am thinking.
I think therefore I am is a circular argument.
Quote: If you are unwilling to grant the assumption that we exist, then neither does the bible (which you are relying on your senses to detect I might add) and it therefore cannot be the word of anyone or thing.
You’re completely missing the point. Within my conceptual scheme it makes sense for us to be able to trust our senses. The problem is that you cannot use my conceptual scheme because you are an atheist. You’re going to have to justify your beliefs in accordance with your own conceptual scheme and thus far you have not been able to do so without invoking circularity.
Quote:
I know because I think about it. You are being totally absurd here.
Absurd? I am not the one using my memory to try and justify the reliability of my memory here.
Quote: I am NOT relying on memory. I am relying on a recording, namely what I write down.
How do you know that you are the one who wrote that down? Do you remember writing it down?
Quote: People with short-term memory loss write everthing [sic] down. A list on a bit of paper isn't memory. Again, false equality.
We’re not merely talking about short term memory here; we are talking about all memory. Using a list that you remember writing does not justify your memory.
Quote:
No, and I'm getting tired of writing the words false equality.
Then stop writing them. They are not doing you any good anyways.
Quote: The axioms underlying logic are TOTALLY DIFFERENT to the bible.
They are still axiomatic so it was a fair analogy.
Quote: They contain principles, not claims. Such as the principle of non-contradiction. Perhaps you should do some reading, maybe try and understand the subject (sorry, this is not covered in the Bible.)
The Bible contains principles as well; perhaps you should read it sometime. God’s existence is a fundamental principle, God’s love is a fundamental principle, Man being created in the image of God is a fundamental principle, and so on.
Quote:
NO YOU MORON. I am still alive, ipso facto I have not died in a car crash.
How do you know you are still alive? You perceive that you are still alive? You thought that you were up to the challenge so do not get fussy with me when we find that you fall short. Calling me names may make you feel better but it does not help defend your position any.
Quote:
I have provided evidence, it just doesn't fit with your view of the world so you ignored it.
No I value rationality so I disregarded it. If Christians are not allowed to use circularity then you sir are not allowed to either.
Quote:OK, one more time. Using touch to verify your vision is not circular.
Then neither is using the New Testament to verify the Old Testament.
Quote: Using a written list to verify memory is not circular.
If you have to remember who wrote the list it is.
Quote: These things are in no way analogous to believing a book of crazy shit.
Question-begging epithets aside, they are.
Quote:
WHAT???? I don't and HOW THE HELL COULD YOU KNOW IF THIS WAS TRUE???? This is a wild claim even by your standards.
Easy, He who knows everything and who cannot lie revealed it to us (Romans 1). You do not know everything and are perfectly capable of lying so why should I believe you over Him? It’d be crazy for me to.
Quote:I have demonstrated that I am not using circular reasoning.
By using your senses to verify your senses and using your memory to verify your memory? Right.
Quote: You are displaying a lack of logic, reasonableness and factual basis.
…says the guy who apparently is completely incapable of spotting circularity in his own arguments.
Quote:Authority of all people? What does that even mean?
It means all people are subject to what it says.
Quote:
I have, you have just ignored it (and ignored the fact that your arguments about the bible RELY TOTALLY UPON THE SENSES)
My eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because…
Around and around you go!
Quote:No, scripture makes no sense in the reality we live in.
How so?
Quote: Not whining, just disappointed that morons like you continue to have the ability to shape the future of humanity, even in a little way. How many more gay men (or other such 'abominations' according to you) will suffer, how many people will die because of your barbarism?
My barbarism? You must have me confused with someone else.
(December 14, 2013 at 9:20 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: We could, if there were no examples of specifically complex operating systems that don't require creative agents, but our disagreement is that biologists think we have such examples and you don't.
Not all biologists think that. We’ve never observed one to arise without a creative agent so I believe the empirical evidence supports my position.
Quote: However, my point was more along the lines of having only one example of a universe whose origin we don't fully understand, in induction, if we had many universes made by creative agents, we could induce that this one is, too.
Sure, but the Universe is not totally unique. It does seem to be a specified complex operating system with laws of operation and functionality. Every other such system is the product of a creative mind. I do not believe it is unreasonable to therefore argue that the Universe is also the product of a creative mind.
Quote: It's an informal fallacy. The form is valid, but the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. And it reminds me of this:
I am not seeing how it is begging the question so you’ll have to be more specific.
Quote: If I am rich, I am Bill Gates.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.
I think it’s more akin to…
If The adventures of Huckleberry Finn exists, then Mark Twain also had to exist The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn exists, therefore Mark Twain had to exist.
Which does seem right.
(December 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Chas Wrote: Meh. It's not about opinions.
They don't discuss - it's only the appearance of discussion. They repeat the same shit over and over, never actually listening, never actually learning.
They're just less obvious than, say, DOS. But they are no different in substance.
From my perspective I could say the very same thing about many atheists on here. Do you know how many times I have seen the, “God is a big meanie face!” argument on here? The difference between you and me is that you won’t see me wasting everyone’s time whining about it or lobbying for banning anyone who follows the rules from the forum. Your attempts at censorship have been noted.
(December 15, 2013 at 11:41 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: You mean like this fellow?
You mean to tell me that if you want a transitional form you merely have an artist draw you a picture and then exclaim, “Voila!!!”?
Well here's an Oviraptor without feathers...Voila!
[/quote]
Man wrote the Bible, not GOD! I think god does not understand the concept of writing in English!
Also, The Lord of the Rings does not prove the existence of JRR Tolkien. It proves a human wrote the book!
Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan
Professional Watcher of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report!
December 17, 2013 at 7:39 am (This post was last modified: December 17, 2013 at 7:39 am by feeling.)
(December 17, 2013 at 7:36 am)Dragonetti Wrote:
(December 16, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
Actually that’s wrong. The Bible would be evidence for Yahweh the same way the Lord of The Rings books are evidence for JRR Tolkien.
We shouldn’t do it because it will get us laughed at? What kind of argument is that? That’s merely a fallacious appeal to consequence. Secondly, the measure of a sound argument is not its ability to convince others. People are often unconvinced by sound arguments and are convinced by invalid arguments. Do you have anything better?
Where did he say that? He merely said he thought creation was more likely than a naturalistic explanation. I think it is more likely that pigs cannot fly than they can, that is not a fallacious argument from incredulity. If you’re going to accuse someone of committing a fallacy make sure you understand the fallacy first.
Tell Doubting Thomas that, he’s the one who seemed to think it was relevant.
Then what is proven?
It does in fact matter if you’re trying to demonstrate that RNA could spontaneously generate on the early Earth. It’s embarrassing how lacks your standards are when dealing with something that you desperately want to be true.
Actually Whateverist just did Toots (“please do post some evidence for thinking RNA cannot spontaneously exist”). Whateverist asked him to prove a negative.
I was told that denying God’s existence opened up the door to questioning all things; can you point me to any well-known atheist thinkers who question any of the previously mentioned things?
You’re welcome.
Trust me, I am not worried.
Nope.
Yes, atheists love making assertions.
Not a coincidence at all, I would expect similar irrational minds to arrive at similar irrational conclusions.
Yup, all of them.
Neither, it’s because I am a Christian Theist. We live in a Universe created by a rational God who likewise created us. It makes sense for all of these things to be true in my conceptual scheme. Of course as an atheist he’s not allowed to appeal to my theistic conceptual scheme so he’s going to have to figure it out on his own.
You believe his circular reasoning was sufficient? It’s not surprising you are completely content when atheists use such reasoning but object (ironically in this very thread) when you think that theists are using such reasoning. Playing the game by two different sets of rules I see.
So you claim, but your actions indicate otherwise.
You.
It does.
I have misrepresented nothing and I follow the forum rules. The Bible says you know that it is the word of God. Am I going to believe it or you?
What fact what stated? I saw a lot of opinions.
That’s a non-sequitur; the complex system changing over time does not negate the need for a creative agent. Computer operating systems undergo mutative changes over time and yet they still require creative agents.
We are not talking specifically about eyesight we are talking about our sensory perception as a whole which you have yet to justify in a non-circular manner. Secondly, using other senses to justify the reliability of a person’s eyesight does not even work because we know that people will experience cases of sensory deception where all of the senses are deceived in a consistent manner (i.e. Old Hag Syndrome). The problem here is that you are objecting when Christians supposedly do the exact same thing you are doing here.
That’s incorrect; everyone knows God exists, whether implicitly or explicitly.
There’s a difference between being able to operate without believing something is true and being able to operate without something actually being true. Whether or not you believe scripture is true is irrelevant. Its reliability is just as essential to our existence as the reliability of our senses is.
If God did not exist none of this would be possible either so I do not see your point.
How do you know we do those things? Do you perceive doing this using your senses? More circularity.
I think therefore I am is a circular argument.
You’re completely missing the point. Within my conceptual scheme it makes sense for us to be able to trust our senses. The problem is that you cannot use my conceptual scheme because you are an atheist. You’re going to have to justify your beliefs in accordance with your own conceptual scheme and thus far you have not been able to do so without invoking circularity.
Absurd? I am not the one using my memory to try and justify the reliability of my memory here.
How do you know that you are the one who wrote that down? Do you remember writing it down?
We’re not merely talking about short term memory here; we are talking about all memory. Using a list that you remember writing does not justify your memory.
Then stop writing them. They are not doing you any good anyways.
They are still axiomatic so it was a fair analogy.
The Bible contains principles as well; perhaps you should read it sometime. God’s existence is a fundamental principle, God’s love is a fundamental principle, Man being created in the image of God is a fundamental principle, and so on.
How do you know you are still alive? You perceive that you are still alive? You thought that you were up to the challenge so do not get fussy with me when we find that you fall short. Calling me names may make you feel better but it does not help defend your position any.
No I value rationality so I disregarded it. If Christians are not allowed to use circularity then you sir are not allowed to either.
Then neither is using the New Testament to verify the Old Testament.
If you have to remember who wrote the list it is.
Question-begging epithets aside, they are.
Easy, He who knows everything and who cannot lie revealed it to us (Romans 1). You do not know everything and are perfectly capable of lying so why should I believe you over Him? It’d be crazy for me to.
By using your senses to verify your senses and using your memory to verify your memory? Right.
…says the guy who apparently is completely incapable of spotting circularity in his own arguments.
It means all people are subject to what it says.
My eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because…
Around and around you go!
How so?
My barbarism? You must have me confused with someone else.
Not all biologists think that. We’ve never observed one to arise without a creative agent so I believe the empirical evidence supports my position.
Sure, but the Universe is not totally unique. It does seem to be a specified complex operating system with laws of operation and functionality. Every other such system is the product of a creative mind. I do not believe it is unreasonable to therefore argue that the Universe is also the product of a creative mind.
I am not seeing how it is begging the question so you’ll have to be more specific.
I think it’s more akin to…
If The adventures of Huckleberry Finn exists, then Mark Twain also had to exist The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn exists, therefore Mark Twain had to exist.
Which does seem right.
From my perspective I could say the very same thing about many atheists on here. Do you know how many times I have seen the, “God is a big meanie face!” argument on here? The difference between you and me is that you won’t see me wasting everyone’s time whining about it or lobbying for banning anyone who follows the rules from the forum. Your attempts at censorship have been noted.
You mean to tell me that if you want a transitional form you merely have an artist draw you a picture and then exclaim, “Voila!!!”?
Well here's an Oviraptor without feathers...Voila!
Man wrote the Bible, not GOD! I think god does not understand the concept of writing in English!
This book is written by god because it says in this book that it is written by god. Stop arguing and submit yourself right away.
December 17, 2013 at 11:08 am (This post was last modified: December 17, 2013 at 11:08 am by Chas.)
(December 16, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(December 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Chas Wrote: Meh. It's not about opinions.
They don't discuss - it's only the appearance of discussion. They repeat the same shit over and over, never actually listening, never actually learning.
They're just less obvious than, say, DOS. But they are no different in substance.
From my perspective I could say the very same thing about many atheists on here. Do you know how many times I have seen the, “God is a big meanie face!” argument on here? The difference between you and me is that you won’t see me wasting everyone’s time whining about it or lobbying for banning anyone who follows the rules from the forum. Your attempts at censorship have been noted.
No, not censorship - I said it's not about the ideas but about the behavior of the poster.
And you won't find me whining about the made-up traits of an imagined god.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
(December 16, 2013 at 9:33 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Typical SW response. I'm gonna need a moment to respond to this mound of bullshit but in a manner that won't be TL;DR for the others.
All his threads are tl;dr to me.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
I did? Never? If I didn't, then there's nothing to be worried about.
![[Image: Oviraptor027.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.cmstudio.com%2Fimage%2FOviraptor027.jpg)
![[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
