|
On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way  as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that is how they would stop the arguement or you will know that they cant say more. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
also to add, how sure are u that your god is the real god? why jesus? why not zoidberg or the flying spaghetti monster?
|
On October 17 2013 01:32 woreyour wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail. I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there? That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other. What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
|
On October 17 2013 01:40 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:32 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail. I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there? That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other. What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god.. Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back. Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted.
Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about.
|
On October 17 2013 02:42 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:32 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail. I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there? That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other. What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god.. Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back. Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about.
I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist.
As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions.
|
did you know that godel spent a fair amount of time working on a logical proof of the existence of god? fun fact
|
On October 17 2013 02:56 sam!zdat wrote:
did you know that godel spent a fair amount of time working on a logical proof of the existence of god? fun fact
He's not the only one
|
On October 16 2013 14:47 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:49 blubbdavid wrote:On October 15 2013 18:03 ninazerg wrote:On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote:
Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it (2)doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? (3)A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)(1)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with? I never said I know that there exists a teapot. 1) my ignorance does not invalidate the teapot 2)a bit of semantics n logics n shit, if we have evidence that there is no evidence whatsoever that a teapot exists, if doesn't follow that there is no teapot, it also could be that it is a non-teapot (whatever that may be), or that the teapot actually is a coffemug. 3) this one is self-explaining + Show Spoiler +
I didn't say there's a teapot, because I'm not an idiot and know it's allegorical. Sure, it could exist, and "burden of proof" does not preclude the unknown from existing. The moment someone makes a claim that the teapot exists, and someone disagrees with their assertion of the teapot's existence, then it is up to the person with the knowledge of the teapot to go "Here's my proof" or simply say "You know what, I can't prove it, but I know it's there". At this point, the Teapot Cynic has many choices on how to proceed, but most of the conscious decisions will boil down to:
- He sees the Teapot Proponent has offered no proof of any kind to back up his claim that the teapot exists, and decide to not to believe that it exists.
- He does not see any evidence of a teapot, but decides that, despite a lack of proof, has decided that the teapot exists, because the Teapot Proponent said so.
The reality may be different than the conclusion that the Teapot Cynic came to, but he came to his conclusion based on the best measure of judgement that he could employ at that point in his life. However, the Teapot Proponent's argument favoring the teapot's existence was completely empty, and therefore, he was not able to persuade his friend that the teapot existed.
Now, my question is: how did the Teapot Proponent come to believe that the teapot existed? Either one of the following happened:
1. Another person told him that the teapot definitely existed, but did not give him any proof of its existence, so he was unable to pass on the proof.
2. He just made the whole thing up just to fuck with everyone.
3. He has a mental condition that has detached him from reality, so that he genuinely believes the teapot exists, but when confronted with evidence, he simply becomes angry and tells them that they don't know what they're talking about.
4. He was able to perceive the existence of the teapot in some manner.
Only the fourth example would lend any sort of credence to the actual existence of the teapot. However, there remain many questions, such as: Can other people also perceive the teapot, or was he the only one who was able to perceive its existence? Did he believe that he had perceived the teapot, but was actually in an altered mental state due to hypnosis, drugs, mental illnesses, or other psychological conditions?
In reality, the first and fourth examples above are the reasons behind people believing in the existence of God. The first is that someone in a position of authority and/or trust says that God definitely exists. The fourth example is something many Christians claim to experience, which is to perceive God mentally, audibly, and even visually. Now, if you can get two people together and one goes "I was able to hear God clearly with my ears." and another goes "I had a near-death experience and was with God in Heaven for a short time." then you have something there that is worth investigating. So if God is perceptible, then the burden of proof is lifted, because you at least have something. But to go "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist." is just a waste of breath or keystrokes. You see what I mean? You'd not be adding anything to the table in the search for the truth, and if you're discussing the truth with someone, then everything should be on the table.
First off, good that you got the gist of my message.
Now onto your points: I would add that knowledge of God comes from points 1 and 4, I would also say that the true process was 4->1. Someone experiences something, writes it down/retells it, and latter generations gain knowledge on that. How accurate the process itself is I don't want to discuss since even Biblical Scholars can't really give you an answer (except those guys who are 100% confident their opinion is right, stay away from such experts, there is no 100% in history).
Additionally I sincereley doubt that Romans or some dark power made up Christianity to sheeple the people, as some people in this thread would argue.
"you can't prove that God doesn't exist":
While in the initial reaction I would agree that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" shouldn't be used as an actual argument in discourse I think there may be certain edge cases where this sentence can become handy. (I don't know of any example, but I think it may come up in Naturalism debates (although in much more sophisticated form me thinks, sry I don't know much about that, someone correct me if I am wrong.))
Another question you pose is a very interesting one and I fear I can't give you a satisfying answer since my knowledge and logical capabilites are limited.
The question:
We Christians believe in a deity, and there are theoretical proofs and disproofs for existence of such. Now, we (or most) also believe that this deity also manifests in physical form through miracles and voices and stuff. If it is so, then there surely also must be empirical data waiting to be gathered.
And here shit goes down the drain. (Following is only one example why the "miracle" discussion is difficult.)
Moving the goalposts
Assume NDE experiments find out that NDE's are true. What will the hardcore atheist do? Either ignore it or move the goalpost.
Assume NDE experiments find out that NDE's are false. What will the hardcore theist do? Either ignore it or move the goalpost.
Assume a miracle healing. There is no possible scientific explanation. What will the hardcore atheist do?Ignore it or will move the goalpost since there surely must be a scientific explanation.
Assume evolution. What will the creationist do? Ignore it or move the goalpost, there surely somewhere is divine intervention with life.
See what I mean with unsolvability? While there is not much wrong with moving goalposts, in the end it will only prolong discussion with the possible result that everyone just stands by his position.
I guess that is it for me, I don't have time atm and probably won't have the desire to discuss this further indepth. Obv I still can answer if it is important. Well, anyway I hope I could show through my incoherent jumpy posting that woreyur's silly accusations about Christians being [insert negative trait here] are not true.
ööööööööö it's Gödel you silly mericans ööööööööööööööööööööö
|
Yeah but it's not that easy to do with an american keyboard.
|
i know how to spell it
it's funny because his name is God-El lololol
|
Speculative theology is such a load of nonsense.
|
On October 17 2013 03:14 koreasilver wrote:
Speculative theology is such a load of nonsense.
Ha, prove it.
edit: forget it, probably wasn't directed towards me
|
On October 17 2013 02:52 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:42 Hryul wrote:On October 17 2013 01:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:32 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail. I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there? That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other. What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god.. Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back. Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about. I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist. As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions.
Sorry, I've been unclear. I meant you changed the expected stance of a believer, which I would assume is "god exists" to a more careful/devout in "I believe that god exists".
This actually changes the dynamic of the whole argument since you can not give any reason why you should be right. It's something I wouldn't even consider a proper debate since all you could do is beg me to accept your stance.
I still fail to see why this shifts the burden of proof away from you other than that you deny a "classical" debate with arguments from both sides.
But I know I can't "win" this debate since you are immunized to all arguments by retreating to an (absolute) subjective stance. The only way to resolve this would be if God would come down from the heavens to reveal himself.
I also can't offer proofs against god. My strongest argument would be the arbitrariness of properties of any deity.
|
Personnally I fail to see why burden of proof is a useful concept, at least here, but keep going at it 
|
It isn't just methodologically questionable both philosophically and theologically, but natural theology ultimately isn't even really biblical. Yeah, sure, through it theologians can make some kind of space for the continuance of some sort of validity of the faith against the "cultured despisers" but does it actually convince anyone to actually have faith or be more secured in their faith? No, not really. When has theology ever convinced anyone of the validity of faith through logical games no matter how sophisticated? It's just a form of a God-of-the-gaps that isn't productive for believer or unbeliever.
|
On October 17 2013 03:24 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:52 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 02:42 Hryul wrote:On October 17 2013 01:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:32 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail. I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there? That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other. What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god.. Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back. Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about. I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist. As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions. Sorry, I've been unclear. I meant you changed the expected stance of a believer, which I would assume is "god exists" to a more careful/devout in "I believe that god exists". This actually changes the dynamic of the whole argument since you can not give any reason why you should be right. It's something I wouldn't even consider a proper debate since all you could do is beg me to accept your stance. I still fail to see why this shifts the burden of proof away from you other than that you deny a "classical" debate with arguments from both sides. But I know I can't "win" this debate since you are immunized to all arguments by retreating to an (absolute) subjective stance. The only way to resolve this would be if God would come down from the heavens to reveal himself. I also can't offer proofs against god. My strongest argument would be the arbitrariness of properties of any deity.
This slipperiness is because my argument was in response to those who think that it is "obvious" that I ought not believe. I am only trying to show that my belief does not go against logic and empirics because there is no logical or empirical reason that god cannot exist.
Also, don't give up so easily on proof that there is no god. There are some better args out there than the immovable object
|
Well, I guess Anselm of Canterbury was surely convinced by his arguments. And at the same time I guess you would be one of his critics, am I right? (U mentioned somewhere u are kierkegaardian, so I can see where u are coming from, even though I am not familiar with him (yet))
Well, fair enough, going from theory to practice is hard. I have to reflect on things.
|
On October 17 2013 03:06 blubbdavid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 14:47 ninazerg wrote:On October 16 2013 02:49 blubbdavid wrote:On October 15 2013 18:03 ninazerg wrote:On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote:
Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it (2)doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? (3)A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)(1)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with? I never said I know that there exists a teapot. 1) my ignorance does not invalidate the teapot 2)a bit of semantics n logics n shit, if we have evidence that there is no evidence whatsoever that a teapot exists, if doesn't follow that there is no teapot, it also could be that it is a non-teapot (whatever that may be), or that the teapot actually is a coffemug. 3) this one is self-explaining + Show Spoiler +
I didn't say there's a teapot, because I'm not an idiot and know it's allegorical. Sure, it could exist, and "burden of proof" does not preclude the unknown from existing. The moment someone makes a claim that the teapot exists, and someone disagrees with their assertion of the teapot's existence, then it is up to the person with the knowledge of the teapot to go "Here's my proof" or simply say "You know what, I can't prove it, but I know it's there". At this point, the Teapot Cynic has many choices on how to proceed, but most of the conscious decisions will boil down to:
- He sees the Teapot Proponent has offered no proof of any kind to back up his claim that the teapot exists, and decide to not to believe that it exists.
- He does not see any evidence of a teapot, but decides that, despite a lack of proof, has decided that the teapot exists, because the Teapot Proponent said so.
The reality may be different than the conclusion that the Teapot Cynic came to, but he came to his conclusion based on the best measure of judgement that he could employ at that point in his life. However, the Teapot Proponent's argument favoring the teapot's existence was completely empty, and therefore, he was not able to persuade his friend that the teapot existed.
Now, my question is: how did the Teapot Proponent come to believe that the teapot existed? Either one of the following happened:
1. Another person told him that the teapot definitely existed, but did not give him any proof of its existence, so he was unable to pass on the proof.
2. He just made the whole thing up just to fuck with everyone.
3. He has a mental condition that has detached him from reality, so that he genuinely believes the teapot exists, but when confronted with evidence, he simply becomes angry and tells them that they don't know what they're talking about.
4. He was able to perceive the existence of the teapot in some manner.
Only the fourth example would lend any sort of credence to the actual existence of the teapot. However, there remain many questions, such as: Can other people also perceive the teapot, or was he the only one who was able to perceive its existence? Did he believe that he had perceived the teapot, but was actually in an altered mental state due to hypnosis, drugs, mental illnesses, or other psychological conditions?
In reality, the first and fourth examples above are the reasons behind people believing in the existence of God. The first is that someone in a position of authority and/or trust says that God definitely exists. The fourth example is something many Christians claim to experience, which is to perceive God mentally, audibly, and even visually. Now, if you can get two people together and one goes "I was able to hear God clearly with my ears." and another goes "I had a near-death experience and was with God in Heaven for a short time." then you have something there that is worth investigating. So if God is perceptible, then the burden of proof is lifted, because you at least have something. But to go "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist." is just a waste of breath or keystrokes. You see what I mean? You'd not be adding anything to the table in the search for the truth, and if you're discussing the truth with someone, then everything should be on the table.
First off, good that you got the gist of my message. Now onto your points: I would add that knowledge of God comes from points 1 and 4, I would also say that the true process was 4->1. Someone experiences something, writes it down/retells it, and latter generations gain knowledge on that. How accurate the process itself is I don't want to discuss since even Biblical Scholars can't really give you an answer (except those guys who are 100% confident their opinion is right, stay away from such experts, there is no 100% in history). Additionally I sincereley doubt that Romans or some dark power made up Christianity to sheeple the people, as some people in this thread would argue. "you can't prove that God doesn't exist": While in the initial reaction I would agree that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" shouldn't be used as an actual argument in discourse I think there may be certain edge cases where this sentence can become handy. (I don't know of any example, but I think it may come up in Naturalism debates (although in much more sophisticated form me thinks, sry I don't know much about that, someone correct me if I am wrong.)) + Show Spoiler +Another question you pose is a very interesting one and I fear I can't give you a satisfying answer since my knowledge and logical capabilites are limited. The question: We Christians believe in a deity, and there are theoretical proofs and disproofs for existence of such. Now, we (or most) also believe that this deity also manifests in physical form through miracles and voices and stuff. If it is so, then there surely also must be empirical data waiting to be gathered. And here shit goes down the drain. (Following is only one example why the "miracle" discussion is difficult.) Moving the goalpostsAssume NDE experiments find out that NDE's are true. What will the hardcore atheist do? Either ignore it or move the goalpost. Assume NDE experiments find out that NDE's are false. What will the hardcore theist do? Either ignore it or move the goalpost. Assume a miracle healing. There is no possible scientific explanation. What will the hardcore atheist do?Ignore it or will move the goalpost since there surely must be a scientific explanation. Assume evolution. What will the creationist do? Ignore it or move the goalpost, there surely somewhere is divine intervention with life. See what I mean with unsolvability? While there is not much wrong with moving goalposts, in the end it will only prolong discussion with the possible result that everyone just stands by his position. I guess that is it for me, I don't have time atm and probably won't have the desire to discuss this further indepth. Obv I still can answer if it is important. Well, anyway I hope I could show through my incoherent jumpy posting that woreyur's silly accusations about Christians being [insert negative trait here] are not true. ööööööööö it's Gödel you silly mericans ööööööööööööööööööööö
So you are saying?
"I may have the "burden of proof", but in some edge cases (your word) i don't. I can't give examples, neither do i know why, but i think so."
Nevermind the fact that you are assuming that proving God is somehow one of these edge cases. That you can come to a conclusion without example or any kind of reasoning/evidence that suggest said conclusion is true speak volumes about how logic-driven or reasoning driven you are. No wonder you were led to believe those "fan-fictions" (as someone put it pretty aptly earlier).
Considering the 4->1 issue. You point being that originally someone somehow established a connection to the higher being, and write it down to tell the next generation. The next generations somehow blindly believe this thing, and pass it down to more future generations without actually having established this same connection like ther original one.
1/ Blindly believing without verification is generally bad practice. There are no shortage of conmen/swindlers out there that are all too happy to take advantage of this.
2/ Even assuming a high level of credibility of the person who actually pass this down (say... 90%). Considering the number of generations that has passed, the chance of this being actually correct is abysmal. (assuming ~100 generations, 90%^100 = 0.000026).
|
Yeah, I think Anselm's ontological argument is a load of hogwash. I do have respect for some of his other writings though, as I do for most thinkers. When I lost faith all the words of all the apologists that tried to defend the faith by attempting to make it reasonable or at the very least not irrational by taking refuge in the limits of knowledge and reason was always so vulgar to me. That hasn't changed since I returned to the faith. I mean, so lets say that natural theology does succeed in making a valid philosophical argument (which there are many). So what? Kierkegaard expresses my feelings more succinctly than I can, so I will quote him here.
From the chapter "Historical Point of View" from Concluding Unscientific Postscript
Has anyone who previously did not have faith been brought a single step nearer to its acquisition? No, not a single step.
|
Goddamn frreakk. You make some logical mistakes.
"I may have the "burden of proof", but in some edge cases (your word) i don't. I can't give examples, neither do i know why, but i think so."
Wtf I have been telling u guys the whole time that the burden of proof can suck my dick, nowhere I said I had it. My big post doesn't touch the concept of burden of proof. I was clarifiying about "you can't prove that God doesn't exist". Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I mean the sentence ["you can't prove that God doesn't exist"] itself.
Nevermind the fact that you are assuming that proving God is somehow one of these edge cases.
again, wut. I said that the specific sentence ["you can't prove that God doesn't exist"] may have some appliability in discussion about Naturalism.
the 4->1 issue:
1) agreed
2) I am pretty much fucking sure that the bible is pretty similar as one from thousand years ago.You can't use your calculation when it comes to the written word.
|
On October 17 2013 03:34 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 03:24 Hryul wrote:On October 17 2013 02:52 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 02:42 Hryul wrote:On October 17 2013 01:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:32 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail. I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there? That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other. What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god.. Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back. Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about. I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist. As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions. Sorry, I've been unclear. I meant you changed the expected stance of a believer, which I would assume is "god exists" to a more careful/devout in "I believe that god exists". This actually changes the dynamic of the whole argument since you can not give any reason why you should be right. It's something I wouldn't even consider a proper debate since all you could do is beg me to accept your stance. I still fail to see why this shifts the burden of proof away from you other than that you deny a "classical" debate with arguments from both sides. But I know I can't "win" this debate since you are immunized to all arguments by retreating to an (absolute) subjective stance. The only way to resolve this would be if God would come down from the heavens to reveal himself. I also can't offer proofs against god. My strongest argument would be the arbitrariness of properties of any deity. This slipperiness is because my argument was in response to those who think that it is "obvious" that I ought not believe. I am only trying to show that my belief does not go against logic and empirics because there is no logical or empirical reason that god cannot exist. Also, don't give up so easily on proof that there is no god. There are some better args out there than the immovable object
fair enough.
I somehow lost interest in theological proofs once it mostly settled for me. And the problem with faith is that it's not a proper rational thing and intertwined with a lot of feelings like fear (of death), hope, comfort, etc. Reason won't carry you through until the end.
Edit: corumjhaelen, it's useful because otherwise hells of arbitrariness and subjectivity and post-modernism break lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
