Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-11-2015, 04:37 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(09-11-2015 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "Evidence" can be subjective. All I know is, those arguments, in my opinion, are valid/sound...and I am convinced. Now, the arguments are obviously not good enough for you...but hey, can't please everyone.

You're funny Laughat

But in a bad way. Weeping

Tongue

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
09-11-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(09-11-2015 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  They are about as flawed as the scientific methodology you (and others) use for the evidence of evolution and/or naturalism.

"Evidence" can be subjective. All I know is, those arguments, in my opinion, are valid/sound...and I am convinced. Now, the arguments are obviously not good enough for you...but hey, can't please everyone.

You are not even wrong. Not Even Wrong

The arguments for the existence of a god, you are speaking of, are all provably flawed. Each one has at least one fallacy or an unsound premise.

Comparing logical syllogisms to the scientific method is ridiculous, and as already stated above, demonstrates your lack of knowledge of basic logic, and the scientific method.

Are you proud of your willful ignorance?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Simon Moon's post
09-11-2015, 05:46 PM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2015 08:46 AM by Chas.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(09-11-2015 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 10:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Those are (flawed) arguments, not evidence.

They are about as flawed as the scientific methodology you (and others) use for the evidence of evolution and/or naturalism.

Scientific methodology results in knowledge and produces results.

These silly, flawed arguments of yours provide neither.

Quote:
(09-11-2015 10:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  You don't seem to understand what evidence actually is.

"Evidence" can be subjective. All I know is, those arguments, in my opinion, are valid/sound...and I am convinced. Now, the arguments are obviously not good enough for you...but hey, can't please everyone.

Arguments are not evidence; not for you, not for me, not for anyone. Facts are evidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-11-2015, 06:04 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(09-11-2015 05:10 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  They are about as flawed as the scientific methodology you (and others) use for the evidence of evolution and/or naturalism.

"Evidence" can be subjective. All I know is, those arguments, in my opinion, are valid/sound...and I am convinced. Now, the arguments are obviously not good enough for you...but hey, can't please everyone.

You are not even wrong. Not Even Wrong

The arguments for the existence of a god, you are speaking of, are all provably flawed. Each one has at least one fallacy or an unsound premise.

Comparing logical syllogisms to the scientific method is ridiculous, and as already stated above, demonstrates your lack of knowledge of basic logic, and the scientific method.

Are you proud of your willful ignorance?

Your just to blindly and arrogantly willfull, wrapped up in you're own "you have to be able to prove shit" world view, to see how brilliant he is. His arguments are just as valid as yours because there convincing to HIM and if you don't see it than your an idiot. And if you're arguments seem two make sense than your the DEVIL!

You have no idea how hard that was for me to type, I truly apologize.

I once had a preacher come to campus who denied evolution. I offered to give him irrefutable evidence. As I presented it he LITERALLY crossed his arms over his chest, shook his head, and went "Nope, nope." It was the most bizarre thing I had ever seen. The other students on the library started laughing at a grown man acting like a toddler throwing a tantrum so he didn't have to hear what he didn't want to. I'm convinced that CotW is this man's intellectual brother.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
10-11-2015, 11:45 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(09-11-2015 05:10 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  The arguments for the existence of a god, you are speaking of, are all provably flawed. Each one has at least one fallacy or an unsound premise.

I claim otherwise...and of the almost 15 years of my Christian Apologists, no one has refuted either argument.

(09-11-2015 05:10 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Comparing logical syllogisms to the scientific method is ridiculous, and as already stated above, demonstrates your lack of knowledge of basic logic, and the scientific method.

Are you proud of your willful ignorance?

Well first off, when I made the comparisons I was making the comparisons in terms of methods we can use to reach the truth value of any given proposition. We can do that by using the scientific method, or we can use good ole sound/valid syllogisms.

Both are used every day when determining truth value. The point is; there are questions that cannot be ansswered/proven by means of the scientific method...and once you get to that point, philosophy takes over.

Now, if you have the mindset that philosophy won't get the job done and only the scientific method is of value when determining truth, then you are adopting a naturalistic worldview which is a self-refuting concept.

But, you aren't doing that, are you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(09-11-2015 05:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Scientific methodology results in knowledge and produces results. These silly, flawed arguments of yours provide neither.

In at least of the two arguments that I tout, science is used to support one or more of the premises regarding the argument. In other words, us apologists can use science to our benefit, and we can do it safely and without worry of any contemporary scientific discovery negating it.

(09-11-2015 05:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Arguments are not evidence;

Syllogisms that are based on truth premises, which allows the conclusion to be logically drawn from the premises is evidence. Evidence doesn't have to be physical all the time.

But its funny you say that, though. I am a big fan of murder mysteries, and I love watching the detective show Columbo. The good thing about Columbo is, the show had its run during the 1970's, which means he was solving murder mysteries long before the CSI and forensics bullshit we see on tv today. He used good ole fashioned deductive reasoning. No fingerprints, no dna, no gun shot residue was needed.

And every case he solved, he could have formed a syllogism as to why the guy/gal was the murderer...and that was enough to convict the person.

So don't give me this nonsense about arguments isn't good evidence...because it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2015, 12:25 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(09-11-2015 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "Evidence" can be subjective.

No, actually it can't.

Quote:Definitions obtained after a five second google:
Evidence
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Scientific evidence
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge:
Also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.

Fact
A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).

Evidence, proof, facts, etc. are all NOT subjective, by very definition.

Of the items you offered:
Quote:Kalam
Consciousness
Ontological
Design
Morality
Historicity of Jesus

Plus Alvin Plantiga's "Two Dozen or so Theistic arguments" which may or may not include the one's mentioned above.

There is absolutely nothing in any of these that fits the definitions of facts or evidence. Every single one has been disproved, time and again.

Here's a challenge: Pick one, the best one, the evidence that convinced you or convinces you to believe. Start a thread and post your evidence.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(10-11-2015 12:00 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Syllogisms that are based on truth premises, which allows the conclusion to be logically drawn from the premises is evidence. Evidence doesn't have to be physical all the time.

But its funny you say that, though. I am a big fan of murder mysteries, and I love watching the detective show Columbo. The good thing about Columbo is, the show had its run during the 1970's, which means he was solving murder mysteries long before the CSI and forensics bullshit we see on tv today. He used good ole fashioned deductive reasoning. No fingerprints, no dna, no gun shot residue was needed.

And every case he solved, he could have formed a syllogism as to why the guy/gal was the murderer...and that was enough to convict the person.

So don't give me this nonsense about arguments isn't good evidence...because it is.

Did you really just cite a fictional detective as supporting evidence for your argument? Shocking

You don't think the script writers had anything to do with the character's success?

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
10-11-2015, 12:54 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(10-11-2015 12:25 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "Evidence" can be subjective.

No, actually it can't.

Quote:Definitions obtained after a five second google:
Evidence
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Scientific evidence
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge:
Also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.

Fact
A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).

Evidence, proof, facts, etc. are all NOT subjective, by very definition.

Of the items you offered:
Quote:Kalam
Consciousness
Ontological
Design
Morality
Historicity of Jesus

Plus Alvin Plantiga's "Two Dozen or so Theistic arguments" which may or may not include the one's mentioned above.

There is absolutely nothing in any of these that fits the definitions of facts or evidence. Every single one has been disproved, time and again.

Here's a challenge: Pick one, the best one, the evidence that convinced you or convinces you to believe. Start a thread and post your evidence.

Waste of time. He will post one of his arguments. It will be refuted. He will claim victory nonetheless. This has happened over and over again. Why would you expect him to change? You can prove him wrong 100 different ways, but he will never admit to being wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
10-11-2015, 12:59 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(08-11-2015 05:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 07:50 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I was just wondering. Theists tell me that their god created everything in existence from a supernatural realm outside of existence. Leaving aside the self contradictory notion of something existing outside of existence, who created the supernatural realm?

Whatever realm that God existed in before the creation of the natural world would have to be as necessary as God himself.

One can apply the qualifier "necessary" to anything one imagines. Sparky the Wonder Unicorn is a necessary being. This is the fallacy of stipulation by contrived definition. One can attach any number of contrived qualities to anything one can imagine, but we know that according the primacy of existence principle, the imaginary is not real and does not really exists no matter how we describe it.

I define the universe as the sum total of what exists. Therefore the universe can not have a cause. Such a notion would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by asking for a cause outside of existence. This is akin to trying to lift the chair you are sitting in over your head while you are sitting in it. It can't be done.

I reject the necessary/ contingent dichotomy because it is based on a flawed theory of concepts. It confuses a concept with its definition. A concept, on my view, means the units it subsumes and all of their attributes. Leaving aside the man made, there is no such thing as necessary facts versus contingent facts, there are only the facts which are. Of course man made facts did not have to be, but once they are, they are.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: