Total posts: 7,093
-->
@Reece101
Faith is an unconvincing argument. If that is all you have then no the existence of whatever god(s) you are proposing cannot be proven through debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I must admit that although I do not understand your strange obsession with 'winning' I find it fascinating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
If, as I suspect, you are saying that the universe is composed of moving parts and so has no set shape then I agree that this is very likely mathematically speaking. It is still not a testable hypothesis. An untestable hypothesis is a poor hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
The fact that evolution does exist and the idea of a created universe are not mutually exclusive. That is of course the problem with the god of the gaps. Many people are not just uncomfortable with saying "I don't know" but also seem terrified of the unknown in general. This I think is most responsible for god occupying every book and cranny of pir knowledge where the intellectually honest answer is I dont know. That being said if @crossed is proposing a god that cannot exist alongside evolution I think science has some bad news for him.
However the fact of the matter is that I do not have to argue with @crossed at all so long as he continues to employ bald assertions in place of properly logical arguments. Bald assertions can and should be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
How have you determined that animals do not have souls?Animals do not have souls as humans do.
How have you determined that humans do?
What exactly is a soul? I have never seen one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You do not understand the difference between claims and evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Why do you keep restating your claim? I have already explained that without any evidence your claim can and should be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You do understand that the burden of proof is on the claimant do you not? If you do not demonstrate your claims they can and should be dismissed.I left with none of my point disproven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
To be fair I told you that we were going nowhere many posts ago. You do not understand the flaw in your argument and you don't seem interested in improving it so good day indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
If you are discussing something you have priori knowledge of (like that someone is in the house) then it is a bad example. When it comes to god(s) we do not know if anyone is home or even if anyone lives there.I put my cookies in the cupboard. One person is at home at the time. I come home cookies are gone. Who do i claim did it and how do i test it. obviously the one at home took it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There is no optimal play. You simply cannot know what is in the box. Ever. This is not sarcasm or dismissiveness it is actually a parameter of the thought experiment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I recall you didn't like the idea that you could not be right about a hypothetical boxes contents but sometimes that's how hypothetical boxes are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Then they are not good hypotheses. Good hypotheses can be tested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It is not my intention to be either. In fact sarcasm doesn't translate well into static posts and I find it is better to say what you mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are you quoting someone or did you write this? I love it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well stated. Is this yours? I must admit I'm impressed.The concept of a perfect world has driven many a terrorist and tyrant in history. The moment you even begin thinking about it, you will begin to enter a vigilant mindframe. It's best to dispell the urge for utopia entirely from your psyche, since to even bear it in mind dulls the enjoyment and efficiency with which one operates in this imperfect reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. In either case we could at least suggest an experiment because our subjects (cookies/posters) are real observable things that exist and can be interacted with and photographed. No god(s) ever proposed to me can be interacted with or photographed in any independently verifiable way. This makes testing hypotheses concerning god(s) untestable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
An untestable hypothesis is a poor hypothesis.
Cookies can be demonstrated. Billbatard is demonstrable. Please stop comparing something which we have no direct evidence for with things that we have direct evidence of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You have put forward a hypothesis. Now the hypothesis must be tested. How would you go about testing this hypothesis? If it cannot be tested it is a poor hypothesis.I formed a conclusion that explains the evidence
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Correct this is just a claim not evidence of any claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
God had knowledge that dogs would be cold during the winter. So the reason why dogs are designed to grow a winter coat. Is because god had foreknowledge.
This ^^ is a claim. You continue to mistake your claim for evidence of your claim. Look I've said ok nce that we don't seem to he going anywhere and you insisted that you did understand but here we are back at exactly the same place in our conversation with you not even understanding why your claim does not also count as evidence of your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Now you are just repeating yourself. I will say it again. Dogs and snow are evidence for dogs and snow not god(s). You have not demonstrated any relationship between any of your examples and any god(s) you have only asserted your opinion that there is one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Yes but what you have failed to show is any tie between any god(s) and the observable universe.The point was you can prove an object or being that you can not see exist. by looking at objects that do exist and have tie's to said object
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
If you feel we are getting off topic perhaps it is because you have chosen a poor analogy. I certainly feel that is the case since your analogies are all trying to compare known and demonstrable agents with an unknown and undemonstrable one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Ok then all you have to do is get some god(s) seeds because thus far you have demonstrated no such process in regards to any god(s).If i ripped seeds from an apple and shoved them in the ground and a tree appeared. I could easily prove a tree came from an apple and the apple came from a tree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
If I had no knowledge of trees I would not know that about seeds and I would have no idea if an apple hung from the stem or of it were added later as a convenient apple handle.
A tree is a poor comparison because we have examples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What is this "world's difference"?
I am not responsible for your wellbeing but that does not justify me shooting you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Sorry. Good to see you also.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
If I had no knowledge of trees how would you prove anything? I would have never seen a stem attached to a tree so I would have no reason to connect the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I am not responsible for your wellbeing but that does not justify me shooting you.What is this "world's difference"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Tell me why observing x and y. Works when determining a demonstrative agent put x for y.But observing x and y does not work when determining an undemonstrative agent put x for y.
I do not believe in apple trees because of apples but because I have seen apple trees with apples hanging from them. If I had no knowledge of trees it would be perfectly reasonable to say "I don't know where fruit comes from but I don't believe it was a tree until you can demonstrate some tree."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You certainly parroted back what I said but I remain unconvinced that you understand why I remain skeptical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The order thst can be discerned externally is proof of a unifying reality that binds all things. I do not believe this is an extraordinary claim.
This is not your entire claim. When you pretend that this is all you are saying you are being disingenuous. It is when we get past the 'reality exists and so something seems to be holding it together' and start speculating on what that might be that I ask you to demonstrate your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What exactly do you find difficult about this?What ought you do?If you love The Truth, there is really only one way. The right way. Our inability to perfectly execute the right way in no way compromises the perfection of The Truth.What ought we do?Abide in The Truth. Align our hearts and mind to it. If you love The Truth, respect nature as coming from it. See man as being made in the image of it. Love. Let that love purify you to be even more effective at it.
This
we cannot all relate to a self contained hypothesis that is not externally verifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well statedOranges are pithy.And meaningless words are meaningless if they are not relative to something that can be given meaning to.We can all relate to temperature.Whereas we cannot all relate to a self contained hypothesis that is not externally verifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Heh if you want to be that way fine.
In order to change my mind you only have to show some sign that you even understand the logical fallacy you are committing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
There is world of difference between shouldering responsibility for someone's wellbeing and being justified in shooting them and I just don't think shooting an unaarmed person is ever justified. They are unarmed.Her welfare cannot be my responsibility
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So really almost never since it is hard to imagine being in a situation where shooting someone is the only effective means of defense against an unarmed pregnant woman slapping you.shooting her is the only effective means to end her assault,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I have not endorsed one camp over another. I do think that someone with no uterus should have minimal input about the discussion at best but we are not actually discussing my opinions about abortion but your opinions on what does and does not constitute manslaughter. Apparently sometimes you are guilty of manslaughter when someone shoots you unless I have misunderstood your argument.you're not pro-choice; you're pro-abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
It has become clear to me that you either are incapable of understanding why I am unable to accept your argument or at the least do not care if your argument is justified. Good luck in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So your argument is that if an unarmed pregnant woman slaps you you should be aloud to shoot her and it is her own fault? If not then I again ask exactly where the line is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And isn't that what the charge and indictment does? Has she been convicted, yet?
I think it is better to view this as a worse case scenario hypothetical if we are to get to the bottom of what we believe and why.
Is that something you are interested in?
an aggressor would be one who initiates physical harm.
What degree of physical harm? Because I'm sure you will agree that this
if a pregnant woman chases you with a chainsaw,
Is not what happened. So again where exactly is the line. A slap? Two slaps? A punch? Disregarding queensberry rules and hitting below the belt? At what point exactly does it become an unarmed pregnant woman's fault someone shot her?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
This analogy does not hold. Daisies and wine glasses have stems and neither comes from a tree. You are still relying on priori knowledge of apple trees where no priori knowledge of your actual subject, some god(s), exists outside of human claims.Yes i could show my friend a apple orchard. Or i could show that the apple has a stem. The stem was what held the apple on the tree. Thus the apple had to be on a tree at one point. since it had a stem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Yes but you do not have to see something to know that it effected it. If you are effected by that thing you can not see. Then the thing you can not see must exist.
Please demonstrate any effect that can be verifiably attributable to some god(s). Remember that there is an effect is not evidence of a particular cause or even a cause at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
She didn't know that the other woman was pregnant (which speaks to her intent.)
This is actually what differentiates manslaughter from first or second degree murder. Please explain how shooting a person you did not know was present killing them is not manslaughter. (Unless you would like to admit that there is something different about a person as compared with a fetus)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
This implies a presumption of guilt. Legally we should begin with a presumption of innocence. It is therefore up to the accusing party to differentiate between being an instigator and an act of self defense or even that the two cannot in fact both be the case.The premise of the charge is that she initiated the conflict, right? It's hard to propose an affirmative defense under those circumstances.
Depends. What if that unarmed person initiated the conflict? Isn't the aggressor at fault?
Again you are assuming guilt when legally the reverse should be the case. Please present your preferred metric for separating aggressors from non aggressors if in fact either party was non aggressive (as a side note shooting someone seems very aggressive and inciting).
If you flip a man off on the highway and he shoots you and incidentally your passenger killing them but leaving you alive are you guilty of manslaughter?No.If not please explain how the two situations differ in any discernible legal sense.That depends. Who threw the first punch, so to speak?
You did so to speak you flipped him off. If this does not make you guilty of manslaughter please explain the difference between the two examples. Where exactly is the line? At what point does your aggressive behavior make someone shooting you while unarmed (and possibly pregnant) your fault and therefore criminal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
The problem with your example is that I can see apple trees. They are visible organisms. If I take you out to an orchard and show you an apple tree to prove they ecistvwhat will you then show me to prove some god(s)? The apple tree? Because you gave established that if we didn't know about apple trees and had no available examples we would have no reason to think that is where apples come from which is reasonable but flawed since we do have knowledge of apple trees and examples of them to observe.
Your example is actually a step further it would be as though we had never seen any trees let alone apple trees because I have never seen or observed any god(s) let alone specifically the jesus.
Created: