Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That is only true if you look at it from the most pedantic of perspectives.If I prove that a car is red, than I am also proving that it is not yellow.
That aside, I wonder where that notion, that you can't prove a negative, came from.
You didn't prove a negative there, you just illiminated the possibility of a positive with a tangible proof of another positive.
If one could do that with God that would be one thing, but, well, you can't.
Originally posted by jinzin
[B]You didn't prove a negative there, you just illiminated the possibility of a positive with a tangible proof of another positive.
Care to rewrite that into a form that a mortal such as myself could understand?
If one could do that with God that would be one thing, but, well, you can't.Why is that?
Originally posted by Super Marie 64Pretty sure this has already been delt with.
[B]You use the same methods to prove Julius Caesar as you shoot down during a discussion about God. There are writings and sculptures that prove Julius Caesar. Nothing more. There is the Bible and sculptures that prove God.
But your comparison isn't an accurate one at all.
Originally posted by jinzin
Pretty sure this has already been delt with.But your comparison isn't an accurate one at all.
How, then, was it dealt with? I'm dying to know. If you are talking about 0mega and Sadako, that's outright insulting. They didn't deal with anything.
Exactly how is it not an accurate comparison? It is questioning the very fundamentals of what's needed to prove something at all.
We are not comparing Julius Caesar to God. We are establishing just how hard it is to prove a lot of things. God is an individual, active in a time long ago. You can not prove anyone from that time. You can only be very sure, never absolutely sure.
Not until we invent time-travel.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Care to rewrite that into a form that a mortal such as myself could understand?Why is that?
Okay...
You didn't prove the car wasn't yellow by the merit of proving a negative alone.
What you DID do was prove that it WAS red.
I guess if you want to get really semantic about things you proved a negative, but only by proving the existence of something else with hard tangible evidence thus illiminating the possibility of an alternative through backtracking.
That's not proving a negative.
Ummm how can you? 😕
The only way I could/would do that is by engaging in age-old arguments that frankly insult people's beliefs. I'm not going to do that atm.
Originally posted by StyleTime
Guys, lack of evidence actually is a valid reason to deny something. If you make a claim and want to convince others, you'd have to provide proof.That said, you are allowed to believe in something you can't prove. Even if what you believe is generally not accepted or even considered silly.
Of course it is a valid reason to deny something. That does not mean it does not exist, though. THAT is the thing I want established.
Originally posted by jinzin
😬
Don't gimme that look, mutha****a. I eat cyber ninja for breakfast!
You didn't prove the car wasn't yellow by the merit of proving a negative alone.What you DID do was prove that it WAS red.
I guess if you want to get really semantic about things you proved a negative, but only by proving the existence of something else with hard tangible evidence thus illiminating the possibility of an alternative through backtracking.
That's not proving a negative.
I'm pretty that is proving a negative. A car can not be yellow if it is red unless you want to delve into philosophical ideas. So like I said, a negative is only impossible to prove unless you want to get extremely technical about it. Going down that technical road kind of sucks though, because eventually you're going to stumble upon the fact that at the end of the day proof and perception is relative, therefore there it's impossible to "prove" anything one way or another.
Ummm how can you? 😕Perhaps I'm misunderstood your original statement, then? I don't understand how you not wanting to do something = "you can't do that".
The only way I could/would do that is by engaging in age-old arguments that frankly insult people's beliefs. I'm not going to do that atm. [/B]
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican😂
Don't gimme that look, mutha****a. I eat cyber ninja for breakfast!
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanBy backtracking, by proving the existence of a tangible positive... yes.
I'm pretty that is proving a negative.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanWell, yeah. I was speaking philosophically. But that's how you build an argument, you can't prove a negative by the merits of proving a negative alone.
A car can not be yellow if it is red unless you want to delve into philosophical ideas. So like I said, a negative is only impossible to prove unless you want to get extremely technical about it. Going down that technical road kind of sucks though, because eventually you're going to stumble upon the fact that at the end of the day proof and perception is relative, therefore there it's impossible to "prove" anything one way or another.
You need a tangible to prove that the car is red FIRST before you prove it's not yellow...
With God there's nothing like that for comparison's sake.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Perhaps I'm misunderstood your original statement, then? I don't understand how you not wanting to do something = "you can't do that".
Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]How, then, was it dealt with? I'm dying to know. If you are talking about 0mega and Sadako, that's outright insulting. They didn't deal with anything.Exactly how is it not an accurate comparison? It is questioning the very fundamentals of what's needed to prove something at all.
We are not comparing Julius Caesar to God. We are establishing just how hard it is to prove a lot of things. God is an individual, active in a time long ago. You can not prove anyone from that time. You can only be very sure, never absolutely sure.
Not until we invent time-travel.
[/B]
As stated earlier, there are documented historians from multiple regions, countries, and eras that lend credence to his existence. Coins, sculptures and artwork with his face consistently depicted. Family trees, economic and political consequences, influences and effects that can be traced back directly to him and his leadership role.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that he existed.
You CAN argue otherwise but there-in lies the issue and the reason why it's a poor example to bring up in the first place.
In order to believe Ceaser existed one does not need to suspend their disbelief.
In order to believe that he didn't exist however, one must refute or ignore loads of evidence that suggests that he did thereby suspending disbelief and trading it for what I could only imagine would be consipracy theories.
The exact opposite is true with God.
In order to believe God exists you must suspend disbelief.
But, to believe that he doesn't, will not cause inconsistency with the world you now.
NOW, if you want to continue grasping as if the examples are comparible further issue ensues in this thread, as the entire premise behind "existence of Ceaser = existence of God" is nothing more than a MASSIVE red herring to the challenge this thread presents.
The task calls for people to prove that God EXISTS. You can turn to scripture and stories to imply that he existed in the past and is thus comparible to the evidence that Ceaser existed in the past, but that isn't the issue here.
If God currently exists, right now, then there must be some form of tangible evidence to make that notion more concrete.
If so, then please present it.
If I were arguing on your side I would be looking for more tangible types of evidence.
-"Miracles"
- Bible stories occasionally syncing up with geological and echological historical fact.
- Demon possession
etc.etc...
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm pretty that is proving a negative. A car can not be yellow if it is red unless you want to delve into philosophical ideas. So like I said, a negative is only impossible to prove unless you want to get extremely technical about it. Going down that technical road kind of sucks though, because eventually you're going to stumble upon the fact that at the end of the day proof and perception is relative, therefore there it's impossible to "prove" anything one way or another.
the "can't-prove-a-negative" thing would say:
You have provided evidence the car is red, but there is no way to prove that our methods of aquiring evidence wont improve such that we understand it as yellow.
It is basically just the qualification that things might change.
Like, most scientific tests are based around the idea of providing evidence that chance isn't the explanation for something (a negative), and all questions can be posed as proving a negative if reworded, so you are right, in terms of "can we use evidence to say something is A rather than B", sure, but you can't prove that. At some point we might understand the universe better and say that it is B instead.
Originally posted by StyleTime
Guys, lack of evidence actually is a valid reason to deny something. If you make a claim and want to convince others, you'd have to provide proof.
yes and no. in terms of strict theory, no, because it might just be that we havent looked in the right way yet. To say that because we haven't found something, it doesn't exist, is a huge logical fallacy.
in terms of applications to the real world, sure, it is a valid heuristic. I acutally used it myself debating deadline about psychic research (60+ years of research and no real results = very unlikely that it exists), but had always had to accept the study that proves psi power might be being performed this instant.
Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]Both are blankets. Even if one is bigger, that does not mean you are not holding onto one. You are trying to seperate X and X, to make your case look stronger. You hold onto your blanket tighter than many religious people hold onto theirs. However little it is, you hold onto it with a titan grip.No. It does not. This topic is about religion in general and not about Christian creationism. You would have known this if you paid some attention to the opening post and the discussions that you have been part in.
Can you prove that religion is not reality? You can not. You do not even have to answer that. I know you can not prove that religion is not reality. You can probably disprove a few religious positions, in a few of the thousands of religious faiths out there. You can not disprove the reality of religion, though.
Very few in this world has blind belief. Many has a reason for believing and that makes it anything but blind. Do you guys not know the definition of the words and sayings you blurt out?
You contributed in no way, not with your cites or with your talk about science. You created the delusion of contribution, by speaking in favor of science. Science is not on trial here and has no place here. This thread has nothing to do with science, so no matter how much science shit you spit out, you will not contribute.
You might think you do, but you don't. Which is why it is embarassing for me as a non-religious to watch you oppose religion. It hurts me just how bad you are. How little you contribute. It physically ache to see you and 0mega write your cases.
Not if you have good reason for doing so, you imbecile. Learn the meaning of the words you use. [/B]
But the blanket of science works though. 🙂
Prove that god exists.
I feel much the same then in view of your claiming to be religious and agnostic at the same time "Dude dont know which dude he is" springs to mind. Ive been bang on the money.
Sorry youre too limited to see it. 🙂
Not really my problem.....but whilst you continue with your attempted asinine character assassination strawmannery, Im gonna sit, back, enjoy a beer and wait for you to prove that which the thread asks...
Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]Of course it is a valid reason to deny something. That does not mean it does not exist, though. THAT is the thing I want established. [/B]
Originally posted by inimalist
yes and no. in terms of strict theory, no, because it might just be that we havent looked in the right way yet. To say that because we haven't found something, it doesn't exist, is a huge logical fallacy.in terms of applications to the real world, sure, it is a valid heuristic. I acutally used it myself debating deadline about psychic research (60+ years of research and no real results = very unlikely that it exists), but had always had to accept the study that proves psi power might be being performed this instant.
Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]I am more in it for the debating than the outcome. I am debating in favor of the religious, even though I am more atheist than those two ever will be. That should say something about my presence here 😉[/B]
"Wanna cookie..?"
LOLZ at the self-grandisation.
More absurdity/irrelevancy...all you can do is grandstand and stuff.
I proved early in the thread that Science disproved much of the bible's universe origin story, and cited the ignorance of the theological camps anger at science......and how those who were so convinced of the god did it explanation, were revealed to be full of shit. 🙂
We have TONNES of proof that the universe doesnt revolve around earth, despite those who spoke for god's claims.
To ignore that too, as well as carbon dating, physics, biological science IE evolution and everything else that refutes biblical claims is insane.
And to condemn me for raising it, and proceeeding to strawtroll is a bit cheeky.
1. I do not believe in God. I have no intention to prove he exist, so you can stop asking that of me right now. That has never been the point. The point is that you are not doing a good job as the opposition of religion. Your arguments are poorly thought out, lack power and are outright bad.
Religion is not a "Yes" or "No" question. There is a "Maybe" in there as well and it is one big "Maybe". Do you want an answer? The answer is "Maybe". Not even a post-religious can say that God does not exist. No being on the planet can prove that God does not exist. It is, by science as well as faith, impossible to say as fact that he does not exist.
It can not be proven.
So if the only reason you post in this thread is to get out evidence that God exist, or that he does not, then you can just as well leave. It will not happen and you are a fool, an ignorant if you think so.
2. I have read everything you have written in this thread and you have not disproven anything. I know you think you have, but you have made a pretty big case of that what religious people think is wrong, so thinking you know something does not always make it right, does it?
3. You can't be stopped. It's like you're the incarnation of a brick wall. "The blanket of science works"?, almighty God in Hell, you won't stop shitting through your mouth.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*looks at title of thread*hmm
I have never been one to ask another to prove his faith. I find the notion ridiculous. The reason I began posting in this thread in the first place is the poor preformance done by the opposition of God in it.
I have always been interested in the topic of God versus Science, which was why I began reading this. I was hoping it would lead to a good discussion. Once I did, I couldn't help but to get annoyed with the way the atheists dealt with it. Since they met very little opposition despite their ridiculous posts, I decided to make a stand against them. Not for religion, but against their fallacious campaign.
I can not prove God, because I do not believe in him. That does not mean I am not allowed to defend religion.
Originally posted by Super Marie 64
I have never been one to ask another to prove his faith. I find the notion ridiculous.
You don't think people should have reasons for believing the things they do? That leads down a very dangerous path.
There's a story that samurai would test their new weapons by using them to kill the first peasant they met on the road that day. Do we allow that just because he has faith in his class structure? I would ask him to justify that sort of action as the first step in getting him to stop, or at least recognize what he's doing.
People around here aren't killing each other so much but that doesn't mean they aren't doing harm.
Believing things without evidence, for no good reason means that people will contentendly keep doing harmful things. Nothing will make them stop but getting them to question their faith.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You don't think people should have reasons for believing the things they do? That leads down a very dangerous path.There's a story that samurai would test their new weapons by using them to kill the first peasant they met on the road that day. Do we allow that just because he has faith in his class structure? I would ask him to justify that sort of action as the first step in getting him to stop, or at least recognize what he's doing.
People around here aren't killing each other so much but that doesn't mean they aren't doing harm.
Believing things without evidence, for no good reason means that people will contentendly keep doing harmful things. Nothing will make them stop but getting them to question their faith.
Having faith is one thing. Exercising it on others is another. You have every right to your own religion, but keep it to yourself. I see no reason to ask another to prove their belief.
I do not ask someone for evidence for the sake of it. If someone approach me and inform me that God desire me dead, then obviously I will want evidence of this. I will not take the individual's word for it, not that I'd accept either way.
I do not believe in God, but I can not say that those who does is wrong. I am also smart enough to realize that even if he is real, he can not be simply proven by mortal means. People would not have been trying for the past thousand years if it was that easy. To ask someone "prove God" is stupid.
Not when so much leyway is asked to be given to it all the time.
Not when believers are threaten with hell and punishment from such an early age, right til your death and beyond.
Not when war is fought over land supposedly divied up by this god.
Not when faith based suicide bombers, are being created off it.
Not when humans claim superiority to others, because of their "special relationship" with this god.
Not when fatalism is substituted for medical care.
Not when religion is taught in schools as history.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
I basically agree with you that if religion was kept to the believer's own sphere of existance, that'd be all well and good. But it keeps trying to encroach into areas that concern the rest of us.
Thats why the question is pertainent....and why threads like these will always be valid.
You should also then, be intelligent enough to realise if man cannot comprehend an existant God, then its high time that its disregarded altogether, since an all powerful god would be able to prove very easily to even the most skeptical of it's existance....and it at the very least seems to be the Deist concept if anything....or at the very least very unconcerned with our affairs....but theres no rational reason to believe even in the deist version, as far as I can see.