Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 2:42 am
(This post was last modified: August 23, 2009 at 2:43 am by fr0d0.)
(August 22, 2009 at 6:02 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: Well my point is that belief without evidence is delusional! Have a nice day.
EvD
And my point is: closing your eyes to fact to retain your world is view plainly delusional. You keep on playing the evidence card despite logic. ie.: would you say that evidence that CAN'T be corroborated in order to fulfill the criteria is acceptable evidence? Please go over the same well worn illogical point for the thousandth time, I'm really interested to hear it, once more. NOT.
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 4:54 am
(August 23, 2009 at 2:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: (August 22, 2009 at 6:02 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: Well my point is that belief without evidence is delusional! Have a nice day.
And my point is: closing your eyes to fact to retain your world is view plainly delusional. You keep on playing the evidence card despite logic. ie.: would you say that evidence that CAN'T be corroborated in order to fulfill the criteria is acceptable evidence? Please go over the same well worn illogical point for the thousandth time, I'm really interested to hear it, once more. NOT.
But you don't deal with fact, you deal with logic and the two are not the same thing especially since the forms of logic you and your fellow theists use can be used to "prove" things for which there is no evidence and that the things you seek to prove to be true show a striking similarity (as in no difference whatsoever) to things that don't appear to exist.
How do you differentiate between these claims you make and things that aren't real?
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: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 5:44 am
How, please tell me, can I deal with facts of something that cannot be known by definition?
Things that we've yet to consider are of no interest to us. The similarity IS that there is no evidence, but then God which is defined and answers logical assumptions is very different to 'nothing'. You can consider it whether you believe it or not. Questions on proof of it's existence are irrelevant due to it's definition. Unfortunately you can't change that and be talking about the same thing.
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 6:57 am
(August 23, 2009 at 5:44 am)fr0d0 Wrote: How, please tell me, can I deal with facts of something that cannot be known by definition?
If they cannot be known then they aren't fucking facts!!!! Simples!
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: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 7:24 am
Thankyou. Next.
Posts: 628
Threads: 13
Joined: December 1, 2008
Reputation:
13
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 8:30 am
(August 23, 2009 at 5:44 am)fr0d0 Wrote: How, please tell me, can I deal with facts of something that cannot be known by definition?
Easy... just change the definition. [cough="jon paul"][/cough]
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 1:10 pm
(August 23, 2009 at 2:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: (August 22, 2009 at 6:02 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: Well my point is that belief without evidence is delusional! Have a nice day.
EvD
And my point is: closing your eyes to fact to retain your world is view plainly delusional. You keep on playing the evidence card despite logic. ie.: would you say that evidence that CAN'T be corroborated in order to fulfill the criteria is acceptable evidence? Please go over the same well worn illogical point for the thousandth time, I'm really interested to hear it, once more. NOT.
Belief without evidence means believing without a valid reason to believe your belief is true. If that's not irrational then I don't know what is.
God is a twat. This is without evidence though so how can I rationally claim that? Well because it's outside science and there can be no evidence of it!!....and since there can be no evidence of it then you need to believe it on faith! Duh(!)
EvD
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm
What is 'valid' EV? You didn't answer. Or weren't you answering my post you quoted 
If God is a twat, you aren't talking about my God. Simples.
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 2:33 pm
(August 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What is 'valid' EV? You didn't answer. Or weren't you answering my post you quoted
Might as well use it somewhere!
The Nature of Evidence
But what is evidence? Quite obviously not every piece of evidence is associable with a given claim for that would be to say that the life of a butterfly explains sunspot cycles and perhaps the big bang itself.
When a scientific hypothesis or theory is proposed a number of assertions will be made, an assertion is something that can be said about our universe and such assertions will be based upon evidence. Evidence (valid evidence) can be considered to be anything that can affect the likelihood of an assertion being correct, in essence a form of probability, and (as mentioned above) evidence must be verifiable. A relevant observation (to a given claim) is a piece of evidence that has been agreed to be correctly and accurately associated with a given assertion. Evidence can be directly observable or not ... for example if a country is claimed to have a population of 100 million it is quite clear that is not direct as no one can possibly see all 100 million citizens simultaneously, the evidence for this claim is therefore indirect (it is a generalisation).
When making a claim about our universe it is important to ensure that observations are true (verifiable) and that they are compatible with the claim and incompatible with competing assertions.
Today, the accepted method of investigation is scientific i.e. to propose a clearly stated hypothesis; to support that hypothesis with evidence; to propose an associated model; to gain from that model predictions; to confirm (hopefully) those predications and finally to elevate that hypothesis to the level of theory. That is how science works and it is the only effective method by which humans have discovered things about our surroundings since we were able to reason. It is also understood that if a hypothesis does not "fit" in any way with other knowledge already accepted about our universe, if it cannot be supported by evidence and it cannot provide information about our universe previously unknown then it is assumed to have no value and is dismissed.
In other words any claim that does not "fit" and is not supported by evidence is dismissed and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidential demands made of it.
(August 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If God is a twat, you aren't talking about my God. Simples.
Even though he doesn't believe I think it was a hypothetical god (not sure).
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: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Sup, im a christian
August 23, 2009 at 3:22 pm
If that is all that is 'valid' Kyu then that doesn't cover the problem in question. EV did mention at one point that to him, personal logical reasoning was evidence enough. I want to see if that's still the case. What he seems to link that to now is verifiable evidence - a circular argument.
For you to explain 'time', for example, you have to assume time is physically existent - a marginalist (ie unbelievably stupid) presumption.
|
