Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: A Book?
May 13, 2009 at 11:56 am
(May 9, 2009 at 6:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Blimey, you're a broken record EvF. THERE IS reason, just you don't make the reasoning where I do.
I understand this (at least in an academic sense) ...
(May 9, 2009 at 6:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Evidence has been discounted unless you can counter the logic presented... that you'd need god like measuring tools to view the evidence. If you cannot counter this logic, then you can't keep repeating the evidence line. It's presently debunked.
... but I don't agree with this.
IOW I agree that your reasoning makes absolute sense to you but I don't agree that our line of questioning (of attack if you wish) is wrong or, indeed, that you can consider it "debunked" ... in essence you've made a claim (to view evidence for "God" you need the appropriate godlike tools) but that relies on the truth of God's existence which is far from proven or even accepted.
In essence it puts us right back at the extraordinary claim ... you've made one but you need extraordinary evidence to support the claim.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: A Book?
May 13, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@ Fr0d0...
How many times fr0d0? You HAVE said that you DO have evidence/there CAN be evidence. But you've said that it just ISN'T empirical.
So where is the NON-empirical evidence then?
OTHER times you keep banging on as if there can be no evidence at all. BUT...if there's no evidence at all then there can be no valid 'reasons' (that you speak of) to believe God actually EXISTS...BECAUSE - If these reasons WERE valid reasons to believe that God actually EXISTS then they WOULD count as (SOME form of) evidence.
Valid reasons to believe that God indeed does actually EXIST would= evidence. I am not asking for empirical evidence I am asking for ANY evidence AT ALL.
We've already established that "God" is outside of the empirical realm so EMPIRICAL evidence isn't required - but there has to be SOME evidence if there's a valid reason to believe God actually exists.
So which is it? Are these 'reasons' of yours valid reasons to believe that God actually EXISTS (IOW: NON-empirical evidence, but still evidence nevertheless - they would have to be IF they were indeed valid)...
OR...do you believe in God without any valid 'reasons' at all to...believe he actually EXISTS?
In which case you would be believing that God exists without any actual reasons to believe...that he actually exists - which is obviously irrational. You would then be believing in the EXISTENCE of "God" without any valid reasons to actually believe that he DOES actually EXIST - can't get much more irrational, much more illogical, than that.
EvF
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: A Book?
May 13, 2009 at 5:32 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2009 at 5:58 pm by fr0d0.)
(May 13, 2009 at 11:10 am)Tiberius Wrote: Well as much as you seem to like following the "god of the gaps" argument, it doesn't impress me. This is a clear case of:
I don't entertain such an idea.
(May 13, 2009 at 11:10 am)Tiberius Wrote: Bible claimed X.
People believed X because Bible claimed X.
Science claimed Y.
People fight over X and Y and split into two groups, A and B.
People in A believe Y and say Bible was simply "misinterpreted" to seem like it was claiming X.
People in B believe X and say that science is all bullshit.
Luckily you aren't a member of group B fr0d0, but group A isn't anything to be proud of either. I prefer group C:
People in C accept Y because science > bible and people in groups A and B are just crazy.
Let me work that out as well...
People, A, observed X
Science, B, claimed Y
Some people, C, lost their way and thought X = Y
People still observed X, and also observed Y
Group C fought over X = Y
Groups A & B lived in peace observing X & Y
You Adrian, along with Creationist nut jobs, are in group C. How does that make you feel?
(May 13, 2009 at 11:56 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: (May 9, 2009 at 6:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Evidence has been discounted unless you can counter the logic presented... that you'd need god like measuring tools to view the evidence. If you cannot counter this logic, then you can't keep repeating the evidence line. It's presently debunked.
... but I don't agree with this.
IOW I agree that your reasoning makes absolute sense to you but I don't agree that our line of questioning (of attack if you wish) is wrong or, indeed, that you can consider it "debunked" ... in essence you've made a claim (to view evidence for "God" you need the appropriate godlike tools) but that relies on the truth of God's existence which is far from proven or even accepted.
In essence it puts us right back at the extraordinary claim ... you've made one but you need extraordinary evidence to support the claim.
Kyu
Absolutely agreed. I stretched the idea to state that. You are correct.
@ EvF
Sorry m8 I find it hard to talk theory and then flick to examples. Every time I quote or refer to the Bible I'm taking about that reasoning.
Posts: 1694
Threads: 24
Joined: August 28, 2008
Reputation:
22
RE: A Book?
May 14, 2009 at 12:10 pm
What the hell is this a discussion on religion or an algebra lesson lol.You guys crack me up sometimes.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: A Book?
May 14, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Lol haha. I love this place.
Posts: 1694
Threads: 24
Joined: August 28, 2008
Reputation:
22
RE: A Book?
May 15, 2009 at 10:45 am
(This post was last modified: May 15, 2009 at 10:46 am by chatpilot.)
If there is one field of study I hate regarding biblical studies and the possible existence of God it has to be the laws of statistics and probability theory.Talk about extremely boring stuff,it should actually be applied as a method of torture during war.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: A Book?
May 15, 2009 at 10:46 am
I love probability, it's my favourite part of maths BUT - only if it's estimated probability or used vaguely for things like poker...
If I had to actually sit down and do the maths to get it EXACTLY 100% right (rather than estimated probability for practical reasons) or study 'probability theory' - I agree; I'd probably find it very boring too. And if not - I'd still rather be doing other things and just use probability estimated for practical reasons...
E.G: I understand that God is extremely improbable...But I don't know the maths of EXACTLY how improbable he is lol!! It's just estimated to be of course extremely improbable for reasons previously stated by me (Where stated by me? Kid of all over these forums LOL.).
EvF
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: A Book?
May 15, 2009 at 10:48 am
(This post was last modified: May 15, 2009 at 10:50 am by leo-rcc.)
Quote:If there is one field of study I hate regarding biblical studies and the possible existence of God it has to be the laws of statistics and probability theory.Talk about extremely boring stuff,it should actually be applied as a method of torture during war.
I was reading up on the tensile strength of M6 8.8 bolts. Not exactly the most thrilling read.
PS: Thread Class 6h, Tensile Strength 116,000 PSI, Rockwell Hardness C22-C32.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: A Book?
May 15, 2009 at 1:06 pm
(May 13, 2009 at 5:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (May 13, 2009 at 11:56 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: (May 9, 2009 at 6:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Evidence has been discounted unless you can counter the logic presented... that you'd need god like measuring tools to view the evidence. If you cannot counter this logic, then you can't keep repeating the evidence line. It's presently debunked.
... but I don't agree with this.
IOW I agree that your reasoning makes absolute sense to you but I don't agree that our line of questioning (of attack if you wish) is wrong or, indeed, that you can consider it "debunked" ... in essence you've made a claim (to view evidence for "God" you need the appropriate godlike tools) but that relies on the truth of God's existence which is far from proven or even accepted.
In essence it puts us right back at the extraordinary claim ... you've made one but you need extraordinary evidence to support the claim.
Kyu
Absolutely agreed. I stretched the idea to state that. You are correct.
Odd...are you saying you absolutely agree with what Kyu just said?? Well...if so - would that include his last line? That you've made an extraordinary claim and you need extraordinary evidence?
Well; if your 'absolute agreement' with Kyu includes this, includes that last line of his...
Where's the evidence then? Surely you must have made a mistake because you keep saying there can be no evidence (or at least no EMPIRICAL evidence)....
But you said that you 'stretched the idea to state that' - does that mean that you've stretched your idea to include the notion that you DO need extraordinary evidence? If not, stretched WHAT idea, and are you being serious?
Where is the evidence? (I will keep talking of evidence. You believe in God's existence then I'm gonna want evidence - if you have any valid reasons it would be evidence! So were ARE the valid reasons/evidence? (whether those valid reasons are for 'faith itself' or not).
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: A Book?
May 15, 2009 at 2:10 pm
No EvF I was just agreeing with the point Kyu was making... that to say that evidence is debunked was pushing it too far.
|
