Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-10-2016, 06:25 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 07:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  Acknowledge that you are simply repeating what I have just said? Did you not understand it?

This is what you originally said: "I have no burden of proof. I am stating my belief, not making a claim.

And my belief is based on an utter lack of evidence to the contrary."

Which is wrong for a variety of reasons. Naturalism is true is a positive claim, so yes you do have a burden of proof for that. Secondly your belief that naturalism is true is not based on a lack evidence. A point which I harbored you on for a bit till you revised it to make it based on "strong evidence" in support of it.

But it's good to know that you finally conceded that a lack of evidence for naturalism, entails a lack of belief in naturalism. And is not some default position in light of an absence of evidence one way or the other,

Quote:Your concept of a god is a supernatural one. There is precisely the same evidence of either.

My concept of God is a dead jew killed by the romans 2000 years ago. And term supernatural has no real equivalent in my mother tongue, that doesn't attempt to draw such a distinction between natural and supernatural as common among the west. And in attempting to decipher what it means when used by individuals like yourself, I draw blanks.

Now you'll likely repeat that the supernatural means "not natural", thinking you've defined it, but you haven't. Because the question still remains what does it mean for something to be not natural? Suppose we discovered some property that defies what we previously though were fixed laws of the universe. To me that would suggest our beliefs that these laws were fixed was wrong. Though our understanding of the universe changes in light of such discovery, you and others would likely still call this observable phenomenon, that defied previously held beliefs as natural. The meaning of natural has grown to encompass any observable phenomena . The universe could be designed, and yet be considered entirely natural.

The question of asking for observable evidence for the supernatural, is non-sequitur, because observable phenomenon would be labeled natural, by definition.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 09:39 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(05-10-2016 06:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-10-2016 07:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  Acknowledge that you are simply repeating what I have just said? Did you not understand it?

This is what you originally said: "I have no burden of proof. I am stating my belief, not making a claim.

And my belief is based on an utter lack of evidence to the contrary."

Which is wrong for a variety of reasons. Naturalism is true is a positive claim, so yes you do have a burden of proof for that. Secondly your belief that naturalism is true is not based on a lack evidence. A point which I harbored you on for a bit till you revised it to make it based on "strong evidence" in support of it.

Revised? No, clarified since you misunderstood it.

Quote:But it's good to know that you finally conceded that a lack of evidence for naturalism, entails a lack of belief in naturalism. And is not some default position in light of an absence of evidence one way or the other,

I have conceded nothing of the sort. Where did you get that silly idea?
Science is the strong evidence for naturalism.

Quote:
Quote:Your concept of a god is a supernatural one. There is precisely the same evidence of either.

My concept of God is a dead jew killed by the romans 2000 years ago. And term supernatural has no real equivalent in my mother tongue, that doesn't attempt to draw such a distinction between natural and supernatural as common among the west. And in attempting to decipher what it means when used by individuals like yourself, I draw blanks.

Then I will define it to you: Belief in gods is belief in the supernatural.

Quote:Now you'll likely repeat that the supernatural means "not natural", thinking you've defined it, but you haven't. Because the question still remains what does it mean for something to be not natural? Suppose we discovered some property that defies what we previously though were fixed laws of the universe. To me that would suggest our beliefs that these laws were fixed was wrong. Though our understanding of the universe changes in light of such discovery, you and others would likely still call this observable phenomenon, that defied previously held beliefs as natural. The meaning of natural has grown to encompass any observable phenomena . The universe could be designed, and yet be considered entirely natural.

The question of asking for observable evidence for the supernatural, is non-sequitur, because observable phenomenon would be labeled natural, by definition.

It follows, then, that asking for evidence of a god is pointless.

And you don't understand what a non sequitur is although you often indulge in them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 10:51 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 05:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Ah okay so the atheists here don't have a burden of proof, because they hold no positive beliefs here? They hold no positive contrary position to a theistic one, just a lack of belief.

If you believe i am going to argue with a dishonest misrepresenting piece of shit whose only degree is a fake one, then you certainly have two demonstrably wrong beliefs.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
05-10-2016, 12:16 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(05-10-2016 10:51 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  If you believe i am going to argue with a dishonest misrepresenting piece of shit whose only degree is a fake one, then you certainly have two demonstrably wrong beliefs.

Damn dude, tell me how you really feel.
Who lit the wick on your tampon?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(05-10-2016 12:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-10-2016 10:51 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  If you believe i am going to argue with a dishonest misrepresenting piece of shit whose only degree is a fake one, then you certainly have two demonstrably wrong beliefs.

Damn dude, tell me how you really feel.
Who lit the wick on your tampon?

Tommy demonstrating true Christian behaviour, as usual.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: