Christians

[Ryft]

Infallible, "absolutely trustworthy or sure." Irrefutable, "that which cannot be refuted or disproved."

Excellent, thank you. Now, using these definitions, let's examine your position. You suggested that you will not believe some P unless there is irrefutable proof for it in the nature of infallible evidence (Msg. #160). It can be concluded from this that every single belief you affirm satisfies such a rule. If you affirm some belief P which doesn't satisfy such a rule, you will need to explain why P is an allowed exception to the rule while Q is not, without walking into the Special Pleading fallacy. So let's now test that.

Do you affirm a belief that the universe is billions of years old?

As I said before, you are undoubtedly skilled at the use of complex words and sentence structures, but just because I am not as fluent as you, does not mean you should undermine or underestimate my intelligence or knowledge. If that is not your intention, I apologize, but the way you respond makes it seem that way.

At no time anywhere have I suggested anything of the sort. First of all, your "intelligence or knowledge" stands or falls under its own terms; my vocabulary or eloquence is absolutely irrelevant to that end. Secondly, even if it were true that you're not as fluent as I am, as a critical thinker it is my duty or obligation to bring my eloquence to bear in formulating your position in its strongest possible terms—i.e., interpreting it in a way that attributes to it as much validity and intelligence as I can with a careful and therefore critical reading.

If you are not here to show us why we should believe in God, then why are you here?

I have explained that several times in different threads, including my formal debate with Saerules—and now here in this thread, too. Stated concisely, I am here (i) to observe how the Christian world view stands up under scrutiny and (ii) to evaluate whether or not that scrutiny is itself valid. As early as my second day at this site, in my introduction thread I said, "I'm not here to unleash logical justifications that hopefully convert atheists. I leave people to believe whatever they want to believe. Some Christians feel a pressing mandate to evangelize everywhere all the time. I don't. There is absolutely nothing I can say about the gospel and salvation that people here don't already know, right? It would be a waste of my time and theirs."

---

I'm actually saying there is no evidence that suggests a God exists. So saying "God does not exist" is a conclusion based on lack of evidence to say it does. I'm sure everyone else got it!

Yes, I'm sure they did. And to conclude ¬P on the basis that P is not proven commits that fallacy I specified—which it seems they also got.

I have said I'm not claiming there is no God.

I know, which is why I said your signature should be changed. (And yes, I know you have now.)

You see, I have a nasty habit of not adding a word or two in order to get straight to the point in the shortest of sentences. It's a habit I've had for a long time. Straight to the point, even if it meant leaving some words out. You'd notice it from time to time in my posts.

That's why I took the time to make the point with you. I thought that perhaps once you realized what your signature was asserting you would want to change it.

---

As with anything, if a theory or hypothosis should be true, then it should be able to be to disproved. Something that you don't have the chance to disprove cannot be regarded as a theory or a hypothosis.

Not according to Retorth, who apparently insists that no belief should be affirmed without proof that is irrefutable and evidence that is infallible. You two should talk. Perhaps you could clarify for him the fundamental principles that guide the scientific mind.