Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2010, 07:34 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
ok than I must agree on that note and apologize as well, I thought you were on about something else.

There are a lot of things I'd say work better than religion, the government for instance, although in some countries that is debatable.

I really would like to know what information you base your faith on as well.

and when I say "these people" I am referring to the religious in general, not just YEC's or OEC's or evolutionists.

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2010, 07:44 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
The government!? Any government?!? Seriously!?!? Big Grin

Well "these people" doesn't seem to include me as I embrace science completely, and I'd challenge you to find anything in science that you and I would disagree on - given our belief stances.

I'm not here to preach and I won't be drawn into doing so no matter what. I want rational discourse with reasonable people on a subject of great interest to me.

If you've got the time, check out this interview with Father George Coyne by Richard Dawkins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc - if you haven't seen it already.

Sorry it's a bit long. I think I'm in total agreement with George Coyne on everything he says there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2010, 07:57 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(20-11-2010 07:44 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  The government!? Any government?!? Seriously!?!? Big Grin

Well "these people" doesn't seem to include me as I embrace science completely, and I'd challenge you to find anything in science that you and I would disagree on - given our belief stances.

I'm not here to preach and I won't be drawn into doing so no matter what. I want rational discourse with reasonable people on a subject of great interest to me.

If you've got the time, check out this interview with Father George Coyne by Richard Dawkins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc - if you haven't seen it already.

Sorry it's a bit long. I think I'm in total agreement with George Coyne on everything he says there.


ROFL I can totally see why my comment made you laugh xD
No, not any government, thats why I said it would be debatable in some countries. Hell, the Canadian government can't even keep our roads fully maintained most of the time.

I doubt we would disagree on something scientific, given that we're both on the internet and could have endless sources backing our claims, depending on how hard you look.

I must say, good job not trolling us so far(as far as I know) I've seen christians go onto forums like this, fill every thread with shit than run off to the next forum. I'm glad you haven't so far, we'd probably get along in real life.

I'll have to check out the link in the morning, its currently 9:56PM and my mental faculties aren't at their best on the weekends.

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2010, 09:05 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(20-11-2010 06:43 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  So you seem to agree with the logic there Unbeliever - that it would be illogical to make a claim of non existence ~therefore~ accepting Burden of Proof.

Yep.

Quote:Please show me a theist who claim that their God exists... that is: they have more than faith that he does.

http://www.youtube.com/NephilimFree

Quote:And I will show you a theist who has taken on the Burden of Proof which we all know is unsupportable.

Yes. But that doesn't mean that theists never claim that their god exists.

You are, quite simply, denying facts. Theists can and do claim that God exists. They claim to have evidence of it. That they are wrong in no way alters the fact that they make the claim. You seem to think that it does.

Quote:I know that God exists... but how do I know? Answer: Though faith.

Which means that you don't know. You believe. There is a difference.

Quote:What you're doing, if I might presume, is assuming that by 'know' I mean that I have proof that would satisfy scientific enquiry. Is that correct?

In my case, no. It might be correct for UTM. I haven't read through his responses yet.

What you know "through" is irrelevant. If you know, then you have established something as fact, whether through empirical evidence or through a philosophical argument. Anything else is not knowledge, but belief, because it hasn't been established to be true.

Quote:If it is correct, then we're not talking about the same subject. My claim doesn't address scientific enquiry, but philosophical enquiry. I shoulder the Burden of Proof absolutely philosophically, but make no such claim scientifically.

Ah, then you have philosophical proof of God's existence? If so, please present it. If not, then you don't shoulder the burden of proof, philosophically or not, because you are accepting that something is true without evidence.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2010, 11:59 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
I'm confused. How can you claim to believe in God, believe Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, and all that other stuff, and then claim that you don't claim to know that God actually exists?

Fr0d0, I'm really having a difficult time following what you actually believe. You claim to be a Christian, claim your viewpoint is representative of the the majority of Christians, and then proceed to make statement that are in clear contradiction of all the Christians I encounter who claim to believe the bible is real.

Aside from being confused by your actual beliefs, I think you are dramatically less mainstream then you seem to believe.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 03:46 AM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2010 04:01 AM by fr0d0.)
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(20-11-2010 09:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-11-2010 06:43 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  So you seem to agree with the logic there Unbeliever - that it would be illogical to make a claim of non existence ~therefore~ accepting Burden of Proof.

Yep.
Great. I got the impression you were saying the opposite. Now I'm happy.

(20-11-2010 09:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Please show me a theist who claim that their God exists... that is: they have more than faith that he does.
http://www.youtube.com/NephilimFree

Quote:And I will show you a theist who has taken on the Burden of Proof which we all know is unsupportable.
Yes. But that doesn't mean that theists never claim that their god exists.
I never said they did

(20-11-2010 09:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You are, quite simply, denying facts. Theists can and do claim that God exists. They claim to have evidence of it. That they are wrong in no way alters the fact that they make the claim. You seem to think that it does.
They shoulder the Burden of Proof, like I said, which is intellectually indefensible from the Christian perspective.

(20-11-2010 09:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:I know that God exists... but how do I know? Answer: Though faith.
Which means that you don't know. You believe. There is a difference.
Exactly

(20-11-2010 09:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:What you're doing, if I might presume, is assuming that by 'know' I mean that I have proof that would satisfy scientific enquiry. Is that correct?
In my case, no. It might be correct for UTM. I haven't read through his responses yet.
No UTM seems to be on side too.

(20-11-2010 09:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What you know "through" is irrelevant. If you know, then you have established something as fact, whether through empirical evidence or through a philosophical argument. Anything else is not knowledge, but belief, because it hasn't been established to be true.
Yes that's what I'm saying, although theologians might pull us up on the details.

(20-11-2010 09:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:If it is correct, then we're not talking about the same subject. My claim doesn't address scientific enquiry, but philosophical enquiry. I shoulder the Burden of Proof absolutely philosophically, but make no such claim scientifically.
Ah, then you have philosophical proof of God's existence? If so, please present it. If not, then you don't shoulder the burden of proof, philosophically or not, because you are accepting that something is true without evidence.
I've told you before and you've told me you won't consider the evidence. We're at an impasse there. You consider religious endeavour to be self evidence of it's subject - like God = the religious endeavour - reasoning I can't fathom, but which you claim to have proved???
(20-11-2010 11:59 PM)BnW Wrote:  I'm confused. How can you claim to believe in God, believe Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, and all that other stuff, and then claim that you don't claim to know that God actually exists?

Fr0d0, I'm really having a difficult time following what you actually believe. You claim to be a Christian, claim your viewpoint is representative of the the majority of Christians, and then proceed to make statement that are in clear contradiction of all the Christians I encounter who claim to believe the bible is real.

Aside from being confused by your actual beliefs, I think you are dramatically less mainstream then you seem to believe.
Hey BnW. By "Actually know", are you saying 'to know with scientifically acceptable evidence'? If that is the case then yes absolutely. No one can know God in that way. That's the model of God that Christianity upholds.

Please show me how that's contradictory to Christianity.
(20-11-2010 09:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Please show me a theist who claim that their God exists... that is: they have more than faith that he does.

http://www.youtube.com/NephilimFree
Hi UB

Coming back to this one...

Could you point me to where exactly Nephilim states that he has scientifically acceptable (or similar) proof that God exists please? I've watched the video you linked and skim read his website and found no evidence of such.

Thanks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 09:04 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
I don't think anyone is claiming "scientifically acceptable (or similar) proof" though. That seems a bit of a cop out. The point here is that Christians, and really all theists, claim that god exists and they know it he's real. Some laugh off science and say that science can't disprove god because god is above science, and some simply claim that the science that contradicts his existence is just wrong and the subject of an anti-(fill in the religion) crusade. But, I don't see how you can dispute that theists all claim that god is real and he exists. Whether they get into the issue of "proof" is really irrelevant.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 11:05 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
I didn't say that theists don't claim that God exists - I simply framed the claim correctly to be a specific philosophical claim and not any other type of claim..

All I ever hear from those atheists that would demand proof, is "where's your hard evidence". I've had the onslaught here, in the short time I've been here. The only evidence acceptable to the vast majority is scientifically acceptable evidence. Take Unbeliever - we go around the merry-go-round: he want's evidence, but won't accept evidence from religious endeavour.

I laugh off science because it is irrelevant. Science can't contradict Gods existence because science doesn't address philosophy whatsoever. Rational atheists accept this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 11:11 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(21-11-2010 11:05 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  I laugh off science because it is irrelevant. Science can't contradict Gods existence because science doesn't address philosophy whatsoever. Rational atheists accept this.

I suggest you read this frodo
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv...1-s04.html


"Science and philosophy have always learned from each other. Philosophy tirelessly draws from scientific discoveries fresh strength, material for broad generalisations, while to the sciences it imparts the world-view and methodological im pulses of its universal principles."

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 11:25 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
I have no problem with that UTM. The subjects (philosophy and science) there are distinct and complimentary. I don't see how it impinges on either of my statements you quoted, except to define the subject more accurately.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: