Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-11-2010, 11:29 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(21-11-2010 11:25 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  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.

when I quoted you I was referring to the "Science IS irrelevant" and "doesn't address philosophy" part.
even on a philosophical level there are people who've destroyed the god argument.
If I remember correctly Matt, one of the hosts off the atheist experience used philosophy to combat a theist who called in. I apologize for not remembering the exact episode, I could probably find it if I went searching through their archives on YT.

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, 11:54 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
I think it's only right that the God argument can be destroyed in philosophy - a choice can't be compelling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 12:07 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
So, basically, you're conceding the evidence part of the argument and just trying to take it off the table by calling it irrelevant?

The problem with god isn't just he can't be proven by science. The problem is that science has contradicted most of the bible. Claiming that science is not applicable and only philosophy matter does not change the simple fact that the bible, as written has been largely shown not to be true. All your left with is the attempt to say the bible is not what it says it is and that the story is not literal. That is, as we've discussed previously, a fairly recent argument in the history of religion and one that came about only after science started to blow holes into the entire story.

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, 12:45 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Religion never ever has been about knowledge BnW. Science is about knowledge. If you look for knowledge in religion you're going to be disappointed. Science has never contradicted any of the bible, only demonstrably false interpretations of the bible.

I linked you a modern exposition of the actual meaning of Genesis 1 as accurately translated. I've also linked an interview in this thread with George Coyne who makes the case. I can't entertain your rigid adherence to literalism as I see no reasonable defence for the stance. Present me such a stance and I'll consider it. Currently the onus is upon yourself to support your assertions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 03:56 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Hey. I'm getting sick, so I'm not thinking as clearly as I'd like. Please forgive any obvious mistakes in this one. And I may not post again for a while, on account of slipping into a fevered coma.

(21-11-2010 03:46 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  I never said they did

I seem to recall that you did indeed say that in another thread. But, as I said above, I'm getting sick and don't have the energy to go digging through the old threads for it. In any case, this bit:

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

would seem to imply very strongly that you don't think that theists make claims of knowledge about their god. If it doesn't, fine, but please try to be more clear about your position.

Quote:
(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.

You "shoulder the burden of proof" when you say that you believe in God, whether or not you think he can be proven scientifically. Saying "I believe, but I don't know" doesn't magically grant you protection from having to support your belief.

Beliefs need support, too, or they're irrational.

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

Then why do you insist on calling it "knowledge"?

Quote:
(20-11-2010 09:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.

Bollocks. I have never said that, and I never will say it.

Quote: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???

What are you banging on about? I can't make sense of this sentence.

Quote:
(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?

Pretty much every single one of his videos. NephilimFree is a young-Earth creationist who claims in pretty much every video that he makes that he has irrefutable proof that young-Earth creationism is true. His latest theory involves the Noachian flood, comets, and jets of water expelled from underneath the Earth's crust. Watch some of his videos and you'll see what I'm talking about.

That is, if you can stomach him for that long. I can't stand to listen to the man's voice, or look at him, for more than a few seconds at a time. He makes my skin crawl.

Quote:I've watched the video you linked

I didn't link a video. I linked his YouTube channel, which automatically brought up a video. If you look on the right-hand side of the screen, there's a list of his uploaded videos there that you can watch.

(21-11-2010 11:05 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  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..

Which is all well and good, but you seem to think that this somehow excuses you from having to fulfill the burden of proof. It doesn't. Even if you maintain that "God exists" is an entirely philosophical claim (which is demonstrably incompatable with Christianity, a religion which holds as truth several events which should be easily verifiable through historical data, thus making it a scientific claim), you still have to provide proof that your philosophical claim is valid. You need arguments to support your belief, or you haven't met the burden.

Quote:Take Unbeliever - we go around the merry-go-round: he want's evidence, but won't accept evidence from religious endeavour.

What "evidence from religious endeavor"? What does that mean, and where did I say that I would not accept it, and, most importantly, why did I say that I would not accept it?

Quote: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.

Yes, we do. However, science can and does contradict the Christian god's existence. That specific god does not exist, because we know now that many things which were attributed to him are perfectly natural. In the same way, we know that Zeus does not exist, because lightning is natural and is not thrown from the top of Mount Olympus. We know how life began, and it wasn't in the Garden of Eden. We know that there was no global flood, no exodus of the Jews from Egypt, no parting of the Red Sea, no fall of the walls of Jericho, that at least one of the cities that Jesus purportedly visited is more than likely entirely fictional, that the Tower of Babel was never built, that water turning into wine is impossible, that walking on water is impossible, that resurrection is impossible, and that there is no evidence supporting the existence of the Biblical character named Jesus.

(21-11-2010 12:45 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Religion never ever has been about knowledge BnW.

Yes, it has. You don't consider it to be. Others can and have and do. You appreciate the difference between belief and knowledge, and attempt to keep the two separate. Others do not.

I think that this is an important point. You are a believer, but a fairly educated one, and one with a grasp of the basics of philosophy. As such, you have realized the flaws that religion has - that it claims to know where it merely believes - and, rather than abandoning your faith, are attempting to reconcile it with reality by altering the nature of religion.

Your branch of religion is not about knowledge. Others' are, and that won't change just because you say otherwise.

Quote:Science has never contradicted any of the bible, only demonstrably false interpretations of the bible.

And how do you know that these interpretations of the Bible aren't the right ones? Because they contradicted science? One, this is the no true Scotsman (or translation, if you prefer) fallacy. Two, you don't know that these interpretations are merely correct. You are simply attempting, post hoc, to choose an interpretation which doesn't get immediately destroyed by the facts. This is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. While the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is normally used in discussions of probability, it also applies here - you are attempting to paint the target on the wall after the shots have already been fired.

"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
21-11-2010, 04:44 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Hey. I'm getting sick, so I'm not thinking as clearly as I'd like. Please forgive any obvious mistakes in this one. And I may not post again for a while, on account of slipping into a fevered coma.
Sorry to hear you're not well UB. Take it easy!

(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You "shoulder the burden of proof" when you say that you believe in God, whether or not you think he can be proven scientifically. Saying "I believe, but I don't know" doesn't magically grant you protection from having to support your belief.

Beliefs need support, too, or they're irrational.
We have a problem here in understanding the proof required in theology. For you to require independently verifiable proof violates the principles of the model. How can you have a choice to believe if I can prove to you that one idea trumps another? Please come back to me on that if you know better. ie please let me know how BOP applies to a subject where there cannot be proof.

(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
Quote:Which means that you don't know. You believe. There is a difference.
Exactly
Then why do you insist on calling it "knowledge"?
I use the word 'knowledge' to specifically differentiate from belief.

(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:I've told you before and you've told me you won't consider the evidence.
Bollocks. I have never said that, and I never will say it.
You said that using evidence from religious endeavour => the bible - would be circular reasoning, although you fail to explain why and giving reasoning for your objection. You fail there.

(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Pretty much every single one of his videos. NephilimFree is a young-Earth creationist who claims in pretty much every video that he makes that he has irrefutable proof that young-Earth creationism is true. His latest theory involves the Noachian flood, comets, and jets of water expelled from underneath the Earth's crust. Watch some of his videos and you'll see what I'm talking about.

That is, if you can stomach him for that long. I can't stand to listen to the man's voice, or look at him, for more than a few seconds at a time. He makes my skin crawl.
None of which addresses the question that you were supposed to be answering - to show me a Christian who said that they had scientifically acceptable evidence of God's existence. Even though I might disagree with NephilimFree and find his arguments untenable, I don't find him to claim God's verifiable existence. If you have no examples then please withdraw the statement.

(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-11-2010 11:05 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  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..

Which is all well and good, but you seem to think that this somehow excuses you from having to fulfill the burden of proof. It doesn't. Even if you maintain that "God exists" is an entirely philosophical claim (which is demonstrably incompatable with Christianity, a religion which holds as truth several events which should be easily verifiable through historical data, thus making it a scientific claim), you still have to provide proof that your philosophical claim is valid. You need arguments to support your belief, or you haven't met the burden.
As I explained above, your request is irrational.

(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  science can and does contradict the Christian god's existence.
Never. Ever. Please don't make me laugh.

(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That specific god does not exist, because we know now that many things which were attributed to him are perfectly natural.
A positive claim which I now request evidence from you to back up.

(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In the same way, we know that Zeus does not exist, because lightning is natural and is not thrown from the top of Mount Olympus. We know how life began, and it wasn't in the Garden of Eden. We know that there was no global flood, no exodus of the Jews from Egypt, no parting of the Red Sea, no fall of the walls of Jericho, that at least one of the cities that Jesus purportedly visited is more than likely entirely fictional, that the Tower of Babel was never built, that water turning into wine is impossible, that walking on water is impossible, that resurrection is impossible, and that there is no evidence supporting the existence of the Biblical character named Jesus.
Nice straw men. Try addressing the subject.

Most professional historians agree the the historical Jesus existed. This is a well publicised fact unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-11-2010 12:45 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Religion never ever has been about knowledge BnW.
I think that this is an important point. You are a believer, but a fairly educated one, and one with a grasp of the basics of philosophy. As such, you have realized the flaws that religion has - that it claims to know where it merely believes - and, rather than abandoning your faith, are attempting to reconcile it with reality by altering the nature of religion.
Religion has no flaws that you've discovered. Some believers claim to know but you and I considering their claims rationally find them to be flawed - so why do you insist on conflating an irrational interpretation TO YOU instead of confronting the rational view? Are you so afraid of the weakness of your argument? I can only conclude that this is indeed the case.

I've provided reasoning for the rational viewpoint as stated already, twice now. You throwing meaningless claims of fallacies does nothing to further your stance unless you can actually make one stick. You don't seem to appreciate the need to back up your assertions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2010, 09:18 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Quote:You don't seem to appreciate the need to back up your assertions.

That's ironic.

Anyway, I'm still having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around this idea that God is a philosophical concept that actually exists but can only be found in philosophy. That seems an extremely spurious argument. Something exists or it does not. Even if you want to take Ghost's argument that something is supernatural and exists beyond science's ability to detect and comprehend, it still has to exist. Sorry, but what you're trying to argue is just nonsense.

Getting back to your last comment towards me:

Quote:I linked you a modern exposition of the actual meaning of Genesis 1 as accurately translated. I've also linked an interview in this thread with George Coyne who makes the case. I can't entertain your rigid adherence to literalism as I see no reasonable defence for the stance. Present me such a stance and I'll consider it. Currently the onus is upon yourself to support your assertions.

No, it's not. The fact remains that the old testament was, for the first ~4500 or so years of its existence, considered to be the literal word of god and the actual story of creation. Then around the late 16th century science starts to poke some holes in this and we get this "the bible is an allegory" argument, and then it's 2010 and you're trying to argue that this is a mainstream view and has been for all of the bible's existence. But, that is just simply not true. It's not even true today as there is a dramatic number of people who continue to believe the bible is the literal truth. You keep arguing it's some small minority of wingnuts but all evidence seems to be to the contrary of that. Look no further than Sarah Palin's popularity as anecdotal proof.

Changing the rules does not shift the burden of proof back on people who don't believe. The bible claims a whole bunch of things - from creation to miracles to history - that has been largely proven false. Some of the history in the bible is real in terms of places and when they exist but beyond that most of it is just wrong. For example, the early Hebrews did not build the Egyptian pyramids and cities. There is no record of the Hebrews ever being slaves to the Egyptians and the Egyptians kept pretty good records for that period. Claiming all that is just a metaphor doesn't really address the problems.

Finally, I said before that I'm happy to concede that the Jesus myth is based on a real person but there is no real evidence to back up he ever actually lived. As for your premise that historians all agree that he did, that is complete crap. There are people who claim he did and no one is willing to say "boo" about it because who really needs the grief that comes with that statement? But, there is no archeological data to support the claim he lived. No artifacts, no records from the Romans (who also kept good records), no independent accounts. There is nothing but people who claim he lived and few academics really willing to engage in that particular battle. Maybe he did exist, but there is no concrete proof to back that assertion up at all.

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, 11:02 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(21-11-2010 04:44 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Sorry to hear you're not well UB. Take it easy!

Thanks.

Quote:We have a problem here in understanding the proof required in theology. For you to require independently verifiable proof violates the principles of the model. How can you have a choice to believe if I can prove to you that one idea trumps another?

I can't. But that's the point. There is no reason to believe anything without proof. It's irrational.

I am a skeptic. I believe only that which is supported by the evidence. Anything else is, quite frankly, stupid. Even if you're not a skeptic, believing something with absolutely no evidence supporting it is stupid.

Quote:Please come back to me on that if you know better. ie please let me know how BOP applies to a subject where there cannot be proof.

There can be proof. That's the point. Either there can be proof of God's existence or he does note exist. If there cannot be evidence of God, then he does not exist. Whether this proof is philosophical or scientific or irrelevant. There must be proof.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
Quote:Which means that you don't know. You believe. There is a difference.
Exactly
Then why do you insist on calling it "knowledge"?
I use the word 'knowledge' to specifically differentiate from belief.

This seems to contradict your "exactly" above. First you say that you agree that knowledge is not belief. But you said earlier that you "know through faith (belief)". If belief is not knowledge, you can't know through belief. You can only believe through belief.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:I've told you before and you've told me you won't consider the evidence.
Bollocks. I have never said that, and I never will say it.
You said that using evidence from religious endeavour => the bible - would be circular reasoning, although you fail to explain why and giving reasoning for your objection. You fail there.

Point one, this is a dodge. You said that I said that I would never accept evidence coming from "religious endeavor". Presumably this entails more than the Bible, since otherwise you would simply have said "the Bible". Saying that I will not accept evidence from the Bible is not the same as saying that I will not accept evidence from anywhere else.
Point two, I did not say that I would never accept evidence from the Bible. I said that using the Bible as evidence of God is circular. The former is simple dismissal, which I did not do. The latter is rejection with reason.

Using the Bible as evidence of God is circular. The Bible is only true if God exists. By claiming the Bible as evidence of God, you have essentially formed this argument:

PREMISE ONE: The Bible is true.
PREMISE TWO: The Bible says that God exists.
CONCLUSION: God exists.

This is circular reasoning. It is unsound and invalid. It assumes its conclusion. P1 is only true if the conclusion is true.

Circular.

Quote:None of which addresses the question that you were supposed to be answering - to show me a Christian who said that they had scientifically acceptable evidence of God's existence.

Yes, it does. It answers that question exactly. NephilimFree claims to have scientifically valid evidence that God exists. He says it in almost every video. Did you even bother to watch a single one of his talks on his flood theory?

Quote:Even though I might disagree with NephilimFree and find his arguments untenable, I don't find him to claim God's verifiable existence.

Then you didn't watch his videos.

Quote:If you have no examples then please withdraw the statement.

I have examples galore. If you'd bothered to look at his channel like I asked, you'd see them. Here's a video in which he claims that intelligent design can be scientifically proven: Biology Proves Design

And here's a comment in which he claims that DNA is proof of creationism:

Quote:DNA is proof of design and Special creation. As for God, the evidence is overwhelming. His written Word posesses properties only a supernatural intelligence and power could have given it, the personal experiences, including miricles, of so many millions of people, the fact that science supports His Word completely, hundreds of specific fulfilled prophecies. The Bible alone proves God is who He says He is.

So no, I will not retract the statement, and I'd appreciate it if, in future, you actually looked at the evidence I provided.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  science can and does contradict the Christian god's existence.
Never. Ever. Please don't make me laugh.

Do you see me smiling?

I am entirely serious. The claims in the Bible have been falsified over and over. Unless you perform the post hoc fallacies that I described later in my post - in which case your argument is still invalid, because you really have no justification for them - there is no way to defend the Bible's account of the Christian god.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That specific god does not exist, because we know now that many things which were attributed to him are perfectly natural.
A positive claim which I now request evidence from you to back up.

Creation is, of course, the biggie - and, seeing as we know that abiogenesis is possible and that the universe was not created in six days and humanity evolved rather than being created, we can discard that one.

The walls of Jericho is another. The walls of Jericho did not collapse at any time near when the Bible claims that they did. We can also discard the parting of the Red Sea, as there is no evidence that it is even physically possible, let alone that it happened.

And that's only if you accept that any of these events are anything more than nonsense in the first place. Seriously. It all comes down to "MAGIC!" when you ask how it was done. How can you take this crap seriously?

Quote:Nice straw men. Try addressing the subject.

I am addressing the subject. You seem to be confused on what the subject is.

Quote:Most professional historians agree the the historical Jesus existed. This is a well publicised fact unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

I have no issue with a historical Jesus having existed. In fact, I think that it's highly likely that he did. The Jesus of history, however, is not the Jesus of the Bible, in the same way that the Joseph Smith of history is not the Joseph Smith of the Mormon faith, who spoke to God and the angel Moroni.

If you want to prove that Jesus existed, the onus is on you. And as for the subject of discussion, that is Christianity. That means the Bible as a whole is up for grabs.

Quote:Religion has no flaws that you've discovered. Some believers claim to know but you and I considering their claims rationally find them to be flawed - so why do you insist on conflating an irrational interpretation TO YOU

It's irrational to everyone.

Quote:instead of confronting the rational view?

You haven't presented one. You've tried (fallaciously and unsuccessfully) to shift the burden of proof. Like it or not, it's up to you to prove that your beliefs are valid.

Quote:Are you so afraid of the weakness of your argument? I can only conclude that this is indeed the case.

Then you are deluded.

Quote:I've provided reasoning for the rational viewpoint as stated already, twice now.

And I've debunked it each time. And each time you have resorted to this:

Quote:You throwing meaningless claims of fallacies does nothing to further your stance unless you can actually make one stick. You don't seem to appreciate the need to back up your assertions.

...or something similar, wherein you completely dodge the issue. You haven't responded to what I've said. You've simply either failed to understand the point or are deliberately avoiding the issue because you can't answer. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Or are you just going to continue dancing?

Are you so afraid of the weakness of your argument?

"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
22-11-2010, 02:29 PM (This post was last modified: 22-11-2010 03:24 PM by fr0d0.)
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Hi BnW

(21-11-2010 09:18 PM)BnW Wrote:  Anyway, I'm still having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around this idea that God is a philosophical concept that actually exists but can only be found in philosophy. That seems an extremely spurious argument. Something exists or it does not. Even if you want to take Ghost's argument that something is supernatural and exists beyond science's ability to detect and comprehend, it still has to exist. Sorry, but what you're trying to argue is just nonsense.
And here you demonstrate your inability to consider anything outside of scientifically evidenced. It's known as scientism. A philosophy where everything can be explained by science, that dismisses other human traits.

You're hitting yourself in the foot every time saying a. God is supernatural and then b. God can't exist without natural proof.

(21-11-2010 09:18 PM)BnW Wrote:  The fact remains that the old testament was, for the first ~4500 or so years of its existence, considered to be the literal word of god and the actual story of creation.
Please back that up. I've presented you with evidence to the contrary - please reciprocate.

(21-11-2010 09:18 PM)BnW Wrote:  The bible claims a whole bunch of things - from creation to miracles to history - that has been largely proven false.
Again, please show me one scrap of conclusive proof to back up that wild statement.

(21-11-2010 09:18 PM)BnW Wrote:  Finally, I said before that I'm happy to concede that the Jesus myth is based on a real person but there is no real evidence to back up he ever actually lived. As for your premise that historians all agree that he did, that is complete crap.
I don't say "all historians", I say the majority of professional historians. Something repeated all over the web.

(21-11-2010 09:18 PM)BnW Wrote:  Maybe he did exist, but there is no concrete proof to back that assertion up at all.
Indeed. But see the opinion of historians regarding the subject.
Hi Unbeliever

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is no reason to believe anything without proof. It's irrational.
That's a tautology. What we believe without proof IS purely rational.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I am a skeptic. I believe only that which is supported by the evidence. Anything else is, quite frankly, stupid. Even if you're not a skeptic, believing something with absolutely no evidence supporting it is stupid.
I'm a skeptic. I question everything. Denying logic is the definition of stupid, and it's a position that you're aligning yourself with.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Please come back to me on that if you know better. ie please let me know how BOP applies to a subject where there cannot be proof.

There can be proof. That's the point. Either there can be proof of God's existence or he does note exist. If there cannot be evidence of God, then he does not exist. Whether this proof is philosophical or scientific or irrelevant. There must be proof.
There cannot be proof according to the logic. If you want to construct your own not god then we can discuss how it can have philosophical proof and how everyone would be illogical not to believe in it. I thought we were discussing God though.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
Quote:Which means that you don't know. You believe. There is a difference.
Exactly
Then why do you insist on calling it "knowledge"?
I use the word 'knowledge' to specifically differentiate from belief.
This seems to contradict your "exactly" above. First you say that you agree that knowledge is not belief. But you said earlier that you "know through faith (belief)". If belief is not knowledge, you can't know through belief. You can only believe through belief.
It doesn't contradict at all.

"Knowledge through faith" or 'belief' is not scientifically verifiable knowledge.

Belief =/= knowledge.
Belief = knowledge though faith

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Saying that I will not accept evidence from the Bible is not the same as saying that I will not accept evidence from anywhere else.
Yes it is, as it's identical evidence.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Point two, I did not say that I would never accept evidence from the Bible. I said that using the Bible as evidence of God is circular. The former is simple dismissal, which I did not do. The latter is rejection with reason.
Which until now you have neglected to explain.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Using the Bible as evidence of God is circular. The Bible is only true if God exists. By claiming the Bible as evidence of God, you have essentially formed this argument:

PREMISE ONE: The Bible is true.
PREMISE TWO: The Bible says that God exists.
CONCLUSION: God exists.

This is circular reasoning. It is unsound and invalid. It assumes its conclusion. P1 is only true if the conclusion is true.

Circular.
I have to have faith, to believe that the bible is true. To anyone without faith it isn't true.

I don't require you to have faith.
I don't require you to believe that the bible is true: you must work that out for yourself.
Conclusion: a choice.

Certainly not circular.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:None of which addresses the question that you were supposed to be answering - to show me a Christian who said that they had scientifically acceptable evidence of God's existence.
Yes, it does. It answers that question exactly. NephilimFree claims to have scientifically valid evidence that God exists. He says it in almost every video. Did you even bother to watch a single one of his talks on his flood theory?
No I didn't. I have limited bandwidth and asked you to link a single proof - not a whole library where I have to go search myself.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Even though I might disagree with NephilimFree and find his arguments untenable, I don't find him to claim God's verifiable existence.
Then you didn't watch his videos.
No, I didn't. I checked his website and the video that you linked (being the one that auto plays when loading his channel).

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:If you have no examples then please withdraw the statement.
I have examples galore. If you'd bothered to look at his channel like I asked, you'd see them. Here's a video in which he claims that intelligent design can be scientifically proven: Biology Proves Design
Why are you linking me to something else? I asked for his statement that God exists - nothing else.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And here's a comment in which he claims that DNA is proof of creationism:

Quote:DNA is proof of design and Special creation. As for God, the evidence is overwhelming. His written Word posesses properties only a supernatural intelligence and power could have given it, the personal experiences, including miricles, of so many millions of people, the fact that science supports His Word completely, hundreds of specific fulfilled prophecies. The Bible alone proves God is who He says He is.
Again... where the only statement I asked you for? Why on earth are you going off topic???

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So no, I will not retract the statement, and I'd appreciate it if, in future, you actually looked at the evidence I provided.
I'll refrain from vitriol here and give you another chance to link to what I asked.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  there is no way to defend the Bible's account of the Christian god.
Another bold statement of faith.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That specific god does not exist, because we know now that many things which were attributed to him are perfectly natural.
A positive claim which I now request evidence from you to back up.

Creation is, of course, the biggie - and, seeing as we know that abiogenesis is possible and that the universe was not created in six days and humanity evolved rather than being created, we can discard that one.
Off topic again.

A literal interpretation of poetry. There are 2 creation accounts - how do you think the ancient goat herders managed such illogic? Is it because both are true as poetry perhaps. No. Can't be. It was there for 2000 years and no one noticed until now. Bravo on that unique discovery.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The walls of Jericho is another. The walls of Jericho did not collapse at any time near when the Bible claims that they did. We can also discard the parting of the Red Sea, as there is no evidence that it is even physically possible, let alone that it happened.
Again off topic

Dare anyone say "supernatural". It's the subject of the book, but not according to you. Again, congratulations on your stunning logical rebuttal of accepted wisdom. you're on a roll!

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And that's only if you accept that any of these events are anything more than nonsense in the first place. Seriously. It all comes down to "MAGIC!" when you ask how it was done. How can you take this crap seriously?
Magic huh. There is no point that cohesively links all the biblical logic into a message of course. Again, the wisdom of the ages collapses at your feet.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Nice straw men. Try addressing the subject.
I am addressing the subject. You seem to be confused on what the subject is.
Hmmm... I saw not one point addressing the subject there. I bow to your superior logic tho', and believe through faith that you're not talking sdhit as you appear to be doing.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Most professional historians agree the the historical Jesus existed. This is a well publicised fact unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Hey look BnW ^^^ I said most Wink

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If you want to prove that Jesus existed, the onus is on you.
I don't want to prove he existed. You want me to prove he existed. Proving he existed is completely illogical to the framework of my world view.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's irrational to everyone.
Are you claiming mind reading powers now? It appears so.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  [quote]instead of confronting the rational view?
You haven't presented one. You've tried (fallaciously and unsuccessfully) to shift the burden of proof. Like it or not, it's up to you to prove that your beliefs are valid.
It doesn't matter what I've presented or not. You have failed to show how the BOP applies. Without the success of proving my responsibility you cannot demand I provide proof. First you have to establish how. I certainly can't see how.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Are you so afraid of the weakness of your argument? I can only conclude that this is indeed the case.
Then you are deluded.
Without rational support we are forced to conclude your argument false.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:I've provided reasoning for the rational viewpoint as stated already, twice now.
And I've debunked it each time.
I'm sorry you haven't done so once yet.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Are you so afraid of the weakness of your argument?
My argument is stated and stands unrefuted. If you fail to present an argument you are in fact calling a double bluff. Stop trying to address the weakest interpretation of religion to easily shoot it down. Man up and argue with the grown ups.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2010, 06:28 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Quote:And here you demonstrate your inability to consider anything outside of scientifically evidenced. It's known as scientism. A philosophy where everything can be explained by science, that dismisses other human traits.

You're hitting yourself in the foot every time saying a. God is supernatural and then b. God can't exist without natural proof.

Except that is not what I was saying. I'm saying I don't understand how you can claim he's real but exists as a philosophical concept. Maybe the problem is in how we are each defining "philosophical".

Quote: BnW Wrote: The fact remains that the old testament was, for the first ~4500 or so years of its existence, considered to be the literal word of god and the actual story of creation.

Please back that up. I've presented you with evidence to the contrary - please reciprocate.

So, I got around to reading that website you posted and, to quote Inigo Montoya, I do not think it means what you think it means. That site is not saying that the bible stories are not what they say they are. It is saying that there is some shorthand and exaggerations to make a point. I don't read anything in there that says the basic stories are not true. In fact, if you do a quick google search you will find, for example, Christian groups using hermeneutics and claiming that the flood was 100% true. In fact, this site claims it never rained on Earth prior to the flood and all moisture came in the form of dew each morning. Now, perhaps they are not correctly using hermeneutics, not for me to say, but I am confident that the authors of that page would argue with you that they were 100% using it correctly and you are the one who is wrong. And, that interpretation is far more consistent with what I've encountered on a regular basis.

Ball back in your court.

Quote:I don't say "all historians", I say the majority of professional historians. Something repeated all over the web.

Bull. First, I'm not sure what a "professional historian" is. I'm assuming it's someone who at least writes about it, but I don't know what that really means. And, as for what the majority believe, given how specified the field of history is I seriously doubt that a majority of people who call themselves historians would claim they are all knowledgeable equally on any one subject. As an academic study, people will specialize. For example, although I was business major in college, my favorite professor was a history professor I had for a few classes. He was a world renowned expert on the histories of Fascism and Nazism and if you asked him anything about the actual existence of Christ I suspect he couldn't do more than shrug at you. There are a small number of people who will study any one area and my guess is that most of the people studying the existence of Christ have prejudged the topic. Please post a link that references any paper put forth by a "professional historian" that states there is proof of his existence (which, at least in a legal sense, something more than just hearsay) and I'll happily read it.

Finally, again, I'm willing to concede that the Jesus story is based on a real person. It may not be, but I think that is almost irrelevant to the basic argument "is there a god, is there no god". Consider, though, that a lot of real people show up in fiction. George Washington was a real person too and there is no shortage of mythology about him that has been proven flat out wrong. My all time favorite was-real-turned-fictional person is Eliot Ness. A real person who has been completely fictionalized by books, TVs and movies. Anyway, I think you get the point.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: