My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[Kirbmarc]

You can't prove everything that is "true" in a scientific way, but this depends on what you define as "true".

Also, not everything is proved in the same way, and some things just don't need to be proved.

1) Mathematics cannot be proven by science. Science rests on certain mathematical assumptions we all reasonably hold to be true, but cannot be proven scientifically without arguing in circles.

Mathematics is a human tool that we can use to make the universe understable. Mathematics as a whole doesn't need to proved (it's just assumed to be true).

Single mathematic assertions can be proved if they follow the rule of mathematics and are consisent with the axioms. The axioms themselves are simply assumed as true.

Different axioms can lead to different kinds of mathematics. The parallele postulate, for example, can be assumed as an axiom (leading to Euclidean geometry) or not (leading to the non-Euclidean geometries).

When we use mathematics in science we always use the right tool for the job: some phenomena are more easily described in Euclidean space, other in a non-Euclidean space.

Sciene doesn't rest on mathematics assumption, but uses mathematics as a language.

Theorethically we could do science without using mathematics, but it'd be a horribly complicated, extremely long and tedious job, and setting up experiments would be next to impossible.

2) Same as above for Logic

Logic is a feature of human thought, that we use very time we try to understand something. It's hard-wired in our brains, we can't NOT use it. Logic as whole doesn't need to be proved (and CAN'T be proved: we just accept that it's how we work).

Single assertions can be evaluted according to logic, but logic as a whole is just how our brains work.

3) Historical Truths - you cannot prove most of the past by science. Prove Napoleon rode a horse on April 6... using science?

Historical truths depends on documents and reports (written ,visual or of other nature) that are evaluted according to scientific criteria.

4) You cannot prove epistemological truths by science. You cannot prove the external world is real or that other minds objectively exist as something other than deliverance of our own chemical delusion - using science.

You CANNOT prove that the external world is real. You either assume it is or not. But the assumption that the external world doesn't exist leads you nowhere, philosophically speaking.

5) You cannot prove Beethoven was a talented composer by science.

This is why we have aesthetics. But aesthetics isn't interested in "truth", it deals with other concepts.

6) You cannot prove moral knowledge by science. Try proving that raping children is wrong by scientific testing. Do you not believe raping children is wrong?

This is why we have moral philosophy. But moral philosophy isn't interested in "truth", it deals with other concepts.

7) You cannot prove your life has intrinsic value by science. Do you believe your life has no intrinsic value? Do you believe your life only has extrinsic make-believe value?

8) You cannot prove science is valid by science. You would be arguing in a circle.

9) You cannot prove universal negatives by science. That alone, would be most truths.

This is why we have theoretical philosophy and epistemology. But what you define as "true" in philopsophy is not the same thing that you define as "true" in science.

Scientific thruths are evaluted according to the external world. Philosophical truth are evaluted according to their internal coherence.

Most truth cannot be accessed by science.

It depends on what you define as "truth".

---

I challenge you to demonstrate one.

I already have. And Immanuel kant has done it before me.

[Truth Matters]

Superficial dismissals and empty claims are not defeators. You failed to actually defeat the arguments and evidences. You merely exposed your superficial understanding.

Now,
(a) Please provide me the arguments and evidence that justify your Atheist belief?

(b) Try picking one of the first few arguments or maybe the moral argument and let's see if you can defeat it.

In fact, just for kicks:

Premise 1) Objective moral values and duties cannot exist unless God exists.
P2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Try and defeat it. Which premise can you plausibly deny?

---

[quote='Kirbmarc' pid='360906' dateline='1352518551']
You can't prove everything that is "true" in a scientific way, but this depends on what you define as "true".

Also, not everything is proved in the same way, and some things just don't need to be proved.

1) Mathematics cannot be proven by science. Science rests on certain mathematical assumptions we all reasonably hold to be true, but cannot be proven scientifically without arguing in circles.

Mathematics is a human tool that we can use to make the universe understable. Mathematics as a whole doesn't need to proved (it's just assumed to be true).

Single mathematic assertions can be proved if they follow the rule of mathematics and are consisent with the axioms. The axioms themselves are simply assumed as true.

Different axioms can lead to different kinds of mathematics. The parallele postulate, for example, can be assumed as an axiom (leading to Euclidean geometry) or not (leading to the non-Euclidean geometries).

When we use mathematics in science we always use the right tool for the job: some phenomena are more easily described in Euclidean space, other in a non-Euclidean space.

Sciene doesn't rest on mathematics assumption, but uses mathematics as a language.

Theorethically we could do science without using mathematics, but it'd be a horribly complicated, extremely long and tedious job, and setting up experiments would be next to impossible.

2) Same as above for Logic

Logic is a feature of human thought, that we use very time we try to understand something. It's hard-wired in our brains, we can't NOT use it. Logic as whole doesn't need to be proved (and CAN'T be proved: we just accept that it's how we work).

Single assertions can be evaluted according to logic, but logic as a whole is just how our brains work.

3) Historical Truths - you cannot prove most of the past by science. Prove Napoleon rode a horse on April 6... using science?

Historical truths depends on documents and reports (written ,visual or of other nature) that are evaluted according to scientific criteria.

4) You cannot prove epistemological truths by science. You cannot prove the external world is real or that other minds objectively exist as something other than deliverance of our own chemical delusion - using science.

You CANNOT prove that the external world is real. You either assume it is or not. But the assumption that the external world doesn't exist leads you nowhere, philosophically speaking.

5) You cannot prove Beethoven was a talented composer by science.

This is why we have aesthetics. But aesthetics isn't interested in "truth", it deals with other concepts.

6) You cannot prove moral knowledge by science. Try proving that raping children is wrong by scientific testing. Do you not believe raping children is wrong?

This is why we have moral philosophy. But moral philosophy isn't interested in "truth", it deals with other concepts.

7) You cannot prove your life has intrinsic value by science. Do you believe your life has no intrinsic value? Do you believe your life only has extrinsic make-believe value?

8) You cannot prove science is valid by science. You would be arguing in a circle.

9) You cannot prove universal negatives by science. That alone, would be most truths.

This is why we have theoretical philosophy and epistemology. But what you define as "true" in philopsophy is not the same thing that you define as "true" in science.

Scientific thruths are evaluted according to the external world. Philosophical truth are evaluted according to their internal coherence.

Most truth cannot be accessed by science.

It depends on what you define as "truth".

---

I challenge you to demonstrate one.

I already have. And Immanuel kant has done it before me.

Hey Spanky, Posturing and lecturing is silly when you can't demonstrate anything wrong with my reasoning. Feigning pretenses is not a refutation. Get an argument or stop pretending you have something to say

[Kirbmarc]

Superficial dismissals and empty claims are not defeators

I'm pleased to notice that you have skipped the part where I show that your assumptions have been dismissed in more details (but using the arguments I exposed) by Immanuel Kant (among others).

Try and defeat it. Which premise can you plausibly deny?

Where does premise 1) come from? You give no reason for it. Prove it.

Moreover: define what an "objective moral value" is.

Posturing and lecturing is silly when you can't demonstrate anything wrong with my reasoning

Read my other post, then we can discuss. Your arguments are stale and have been disproved many times already.

Please provide me the arguments and evidence that justify your Atheist belief?

You're the one who is making a claim, you need to provide consisent evidence for your god.

Hey Spanky

Another fine argument for the existance of god, I presume.

[Cinjin]

You're a toothless rodent.

lmao ... this guy can't be serious. WAY too many of his posts are absurd. He's gotta be messing with us right??


Come clean TM ... you're not really this stupid right? Tell me you're just goofin.

[thesummerqueen]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I just got back to all this.

---

For someone so impotent to defend your silly belief, you sure do bluster well.

I'de be more impressed if you could provide arguments and evidence to justify your silly beliefs.

Motherfucker, get your god to show himself to me and then I'll stop "blustering" at you. Until then, enjoy the sound of it echoing around the sandpit you've so firmly wedged your head into.

[Kirbmarc]

. You failed to actually defeat the arguments and evidences

I actually have defeated each and every one of your arguments, simply because they have been deafeated so many times already.

[Truth Matters]

Where does premise 1) come from? You give no reason for it. Prove it.

Moreover: define what an "objective moral value" is.

You have no objective basis to ground any real moral values or duties unless God exists as a grounding for an objective moral reality.

Objective moral value or duty means true irrespective of dissent. For example, frying Jews is objectively morally wrong - not morally good for the NAZI.

Posturing and lecturing is silly when you can't demonstrate anything wrong with my reasoning

Read my other post, then we can discuss. Your argumenta are stale and have been disproved many times already.

You have failed to disprove anything. You clearly don't even understand the arguments you claim are defeated.

Please provide me the arguments and evidence that justify your Atheist belief?

You're the one who is making a claim, you need to provide consisent evidence for your god.

BS, My belief in God is no more a claim than your BELIEF that no God exists. Both are proper belief positions. Both should be justified in evidence and argument. I have provided my evidence and arguments. You have not. Instead, you offer a phony Atheist talking point hoping to shirk your share of the burden. Now I expect you to provide evidence and arguments to justify your Atheist position - not excuses.



[/quote]

---

. You failed to actually defeat the arguments and evidences

I actually have defeated each and every one of your arguments, simply because they have been deafeated so many times already.

No, you posted a load of superficial slop that only exposed your unfamiliarity with the arguments and evidence. Let's see you actually defeat one. I've laid out the moral argument for you. Get started

---

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I just got back to all this.

---

For someone so impotent to defend your silly belief, you sure do bluster well.

I'de be more impressed if you could provide arguments and evidence to justify your silly beliefs.

Motherfucker, get your god to show himself to me and then I'll stop "blustering" at you. Until then, enjoy the sound of it echoing around the sandpit you've so firmly wedged your head into.

You expect to see a non-physical transcendent mind? Tell me how that works? God is Spirit. He wills that we seek Him in spirit. He's not some old man in the sky. You should know that by age 12.

---

You're a toothless rodent.

lmao ... this guy can't be serious. WAY too many of his posts are absurd. He's gotta be messing with us right??


Come clean TM ... you're not really this stupid right? Tell me you're just goofin.

Demonstrate an absurdity. You can't.
Feigning laughter is not an argument.

Not one of you Atheists can demonstrate a single flaw in my reasoning - much less defeat my arguments.
Blustering won't cut it. You need to defeat the arguments.

---

. You failed to actually defeat the arguments and evidences

I actually have defeated each and every one of your arguments, simply because they have been deafeated so many times already.

Then demonstrate it? Otherwise you're just lying.
Fact is you can't. You are lying.

Now get busy Atheist. Demonstrate an actual defeat of a single argument.
Show me your evidence and arguments to justify your Atheist belief?

[Welsh cake]

You need to defeat the arguments.

You need to shut the fuck up, LISTEN, and learn that arguments need confirmers, not defeaters.

[thesummerqueen]

"atheist belief"

Oxymoron.

Come back when you've done at least a modicum of wikipedia-surfing.

[Truth Matters]

You need to defeat the arguments.

You need to shut the fuck up, LISTEN, and learn that arguments need confirmers, not defeaters.

No, idiot. I don't need to prove the premises of arguments. You need to defeat them.

That's the way arguments work. Otherwise, you end in infinite regress of proving the proof.

Reason matters