Scientific theory and scientific method: Are they applicable to God?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why should I? He made the statement, the burden of proof is apon him.

No it isn't. He made the statement, your refuting it. Its your job to show why it is refutable. Didn't you ever sit an exam at school or Uni?

Originally posted by King Kandy
EVERY religious leader?

That's a complete lie.

Name one religious leader that has not sinned.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No it isn't. He made the statement, your refuting it. Its your job to show why it is refutable. Didn't you ever sit an exam at school or Uni?

Well, in asking for the person making the statement to provide the evidence for it, he is certainly showing a more educated approach than you are.

It is absolutely the onus of the person making the positive claim to back that postive. If that is not done, there is no need to refute. Refutation is only necessary against something that is established.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Name [b]one religious leader that has not sinned. [/B]

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That was never my purpose. My objective was to prove that the scientific method was applicable for supporting my theory that God created the universe and everything in it. But I did provide a link that aims to do what you request. I have more links that support my hypothesis than I am able to furnish. I would be here all night posting them, and you would be here for the rest of your life reading them.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, in asking for the person making the statement to provide the evidence for it, he is certainly showing a more educated approach than you are.

It is absolutely the onus of the person making the positive claim to back that postive. If that is not done, there is no need to refute. Refutation is only necessary against something that is established.

Thats rubbish, he wasn't asking for evidence. He just said, thats a lie. I asked him to provide an example which shows it to be a lie like I did...

Until JIA proves it, he is entitled to call it a lie. Simple as that. An unsubstantiated claim is akin to falsehood in rational debate.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Until JIA proves it, he is entitled to call it a lie. Simple as that. An unsubstantiated claim is akin to falsehood in rational debate.

No, not atall, just because JIA has low argument standards doesnt mean his opponent's are allowed to drop.

If the statement had no logical basis it is considered false in and of itself.

I think Jesus gets pwned by LaVey

It's not dropping. Like I say, such a claim is akin to a lie. Telling someone making a claim with no backing that is is nonsense, gibberish, a lie or whatever is absolutely fine. JIA had no call making a claim with no backing.

The only low standard here is the unsubstantiated postive.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If the statement had no logical basis it is considered false in and of itself.

Oh, so that makes it acceptable to just go, your lying.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Oh, so that makes it acceptable to just go, your lying.

Yup. Well, more precisely, that it is a lie, i.e. a falsehood.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Oh, so that makes it acceptable to just go, your lying.

If I said that there was an invisible elephant next to me, then barring evidence you would have to asume that i'm lying.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yup. Well, more precisely, that it is a lie, i.e. a falsehood.

I really dont think that would be accepted by you in a debate with anyone other than JIA.

I really think it would, actually.

And it is all a massive distraction from the point that if JIA was capable of doing so he could easily counter KK's criticism.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I really think it would, actually.

And it is all a massive distraction from the point that if JIA was capable of doing so he could easily counter KK's criticism.

Well, I will do well to remember this.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because you get onto this forum and disrespect everyone who does not believe like you do. You have no respect for how other people believe.

That makes me evil?

Serial killers are evil. Beating someone up and taking their lunch money is evil. Molesting children is evil. Raping someone is evil. Saddam Hussein was evil. Stealing large populations of people from their homeland, packing them on ships like sardines in chains for thousands of miles while the defecate on and urinate on themselves, then forcing them to work for hundreds of years without benefits or pay under harsh rigor, then creating a provision in the supreme law of the land that describes them as chattel, and three-fifths of a human, then lynching them, bombing their homes, raping their wives and daughters, separating their families apart, depriving them of basic human rights, discriminating against them, continuing to reinforce a system that keeps them oppressed racially, socioeconomically, and in terms of class, racially profiling them, and locking them up in large numbers in prison, and continuing to make their lives difficult is evil. Terrorists are evil, Hitler was evil. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are evil.

But disagreeing with you on this forum about non-life threatening issues is evil? I do not believe that I am evil. I am perhaps strong-willed, but not evil.

You're evil because you try to twist the minds of the sensible, silly christian man, JESUS IS DEAD GET OVER IT

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
You're evil because you try to twist the minds of the sensible, silly christian man, JESUS IS DEAD GET OVER IT

Your lying.