Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The meaning of "meaning"
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 76 of 152 (574614)
08-16-2010 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Woodsy
08-16-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Purpose
Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy! Finally, after all these miserable failures!!!!!
Let's see it! I really would like to see this!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Woodsy, posted 08-16-2010 9:16 PM Woodsy has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 77 of 152 (574615)
08-16-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Woodsy
08-16-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Purpose
Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy! Finally, after all these miserable failures!!!!!
Let's see it! I really would like to see this!
Your excitability is premature because its preceeded by an assumed and possibly false presuposition. Arent you assuming they were failured attempts. Give me an example of one of these failed attempts in argument form and lest see if its a failure, before I rehash old stuff
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Woodsy, posted 08-16-2010 9:16 PM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Woodsy, posted 08-17-2010 7:10 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 78 of 152 (574616)
08-16-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Blue Jay
08-14-2010 1:04 PM


Re: Purpose
So, you believe that, since you have failed for decades to produce evidence for your claim, that the burden of proof is somehow lifted from you and transferred to your opponents, all because your inability to demonstrate your claim has led to their becoming less and less tentative about rejecting your claim?
When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God. Your starting from a false presuppositon and then trying to conclude that my insistence that you demonstrate why it is a false claim and why the evidence it is based on is not sound, is not a rational way to proceed.
demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim.
not seeing God directly, is not the same as demonstrating the evidence is not sound., it is
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2010 1:04 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 79 of 152 (574618)
08-16-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Blue Jay
08-14-2010 1:04 PM


Re: Purpose
sorry pouble dost
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2010 1:04 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 80 of 152 (574619)
08-16-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Blue Jay
08-14-2010 1:04 PM


Re: Purpose
So, you believe that, since you have failed for decades to produce evidence for your claim, that the burden of proof is somehow lifted from you and transferred to your opponents, all because your inability to demonstrate your claim has led to their becoming less and less tentative about rejecting your claim?
When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God. Your starting from a false presuppositon and then trying to conclude that my insistence that you demonstrate why it is a false claim and why the evidence it is based on is not sound, is not a rational way to proceed.
demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim.
not seeing God directly, is not the same as demonstrating the evidence is not sound., it is
Science makes all kinds of claims that are meant to explain some particular phenomenon X, but Atheism does not make any claims at all. Atheism is defined by its rejection of a claim, not by any claim that it has actually made itself.
So, rejection of a claim that has failed to be demonstrated does not amount to a claim in the opposite direction.
It doesn’t make sense to ask somebody to support a claim that they never made.
And it doesnt make sense to to say someone is not making a claim when they spent countless hours and argumentation trying to refute what positive evidence is clearly presented.
Come on Bluejay grow up mentally, dont buy into that sort of nonsensical lack of reasoning.
Ill try again
I dont mean to be cruel but this type of resoning is whyi believe you are where you are at in your thinking Bluejay
Never in my days have i see such simple things twisted to the point of absurdity.
Rejection of a claim is still a claim, its has an obligation to demonstrate the deficiency in any sound logical argument that pits its self against reason and reality itself
Saying its not a claim doesnt make it not a claim. developing some nonsensical verbage to make it not a claim, does not make it not a claim.
its claim is not that the being does not exists, but that the positive side has failed to demonstrated it. Yet the arguments and evidence are as valid as ever.
yet on your line of reasoning about claimsand on this premise alone we may reject any so-called evidence to support evoluion or its tenative conclusions, because they have falied to demonstrate it
you dont follow that line of reasoning for evolution, why would you interject it in any other logical argument
Dawn Bertot
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2010 1:04 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2010 9:52 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 81 of 152 (574622)
08-16-2010 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Blue Jay
08-14-2010 1:04 PM


Re: Purpose
So, you believe that, since you have failed for decades to produce evidence for your claim, that the burden of proof is somehow lifted from you and transferred to your opponents, all because your inability to demonstrate your claim has led to their becoming less and less tentative about rejecting your claim?
When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God. Your starting from a false presuppositon and then trying to conclude that my insistence that you demonstrate why it is a false claim and why the evidence it is based on is not sound, is not a rational way to proceed.
demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim.
not seeing God directly, is not the same as demonstrating the evidence is not sound., it is
Science makes all kinds of claims that are meant to explain some particular phenomenon X, but Atheism does not make any claims at all. Atheism is defined by its rejection of a claim, not by any claim that it has actually made itself.
So, rejection of a claim that has failed to be demonstrated does not amount to a claim in the opposite direction.
It doesn’t make sense to ask somebody to support a claim that they never made.
And it doesnt make sense to to say someone is not making a claim when they spent countless hours and argumentation trying to refute what positive evidence is clearly presented.
Come on Bluejay grow up mentally, dont buy into that sort of nonsensical lack of reasoning.
Ill try again
I dont mean to be cruel but this type of resoning is whyi believe you are where you are at in your thinking Bluejay
Never in my days have i see such simple things twisted to the point of absurdity.
Rejection of a claim is still a claim, its has an obligation to demonstrate the deficiency in any sound logical argument that pits its self against reason and reality itself
Saying its not a claim doesnt make it not a claim. developing some nonsensical verbage to make it not a claim, does not make it not a claim.
its claim is not that the being does not exists, but that the positive side has failed to demonstrated it. Yet the arguments and evidence are as valid as ever.
yet on your line of reasoning about claimsand on this premise alone we may reject any so-called evidence to support evoluion or its tenative conclusions, because they have falied to demonstrate it
you dont follow that line of reasoning for evolution, why would you interject it in any other logical argument. You believe evolution is true and demonstrateable based on what you consider evidence, yet cannot show any person the actual past evenst of the actual so-called events that you believe took place
But according to your line of reasoning about evidence, it would amount to no evidence and it not being demonstratable.
its seems this line of reasoning almost forces you to take a side, not about atheism or theism but this strawman of and argument about evidence, claims and meaning
Dawn Bertot
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2010 1:04 PM Blue Jay has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 82 of 152 (574634)
08-17-2010 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
08-14-2010 12:38 PM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
jar,
For example the description of god in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the description of god in Genesis 2&3.
Consider this (and please do consider it): is a clay vessel defined by its potter, that is, is the vessel's shape and form determined by the potter? If so, can the potter define the vessel in such a way that the vessel (which the potter defined) can redefine the potter himself?...Answer these questions honestly, and then move on down....
...
...
...
...
...
Are you not a creation of God: shaped, formed, and defined by His power, and His will? Can we then even hope to attempt to redefine God? Is not the endeavor hopeless? Will we then think that our human reasoning (which is a creation of God, NOT a creator of God) is powerful enough to define the very God who created us?
How does this relate to the topic? If God is nothing more than a creation of man, God cannot be the Creator of man. If God is not the Creator of man, then what is? Ultimately, it must be chance that "created" us. And, by definition, if chance created us, there can be no purpose, meaning, or significance to life (think about it for a little bit...consider...can chance bring a purpose? What are the characteristics of a purpose? Do these characteristics include origins-of-chance?...).
But do you believe that God created us? If so, you must also believe that God defines man, not vice versa. You either believe that man defines God, or that God defines man. If God created man, then He gets to define man, and man cannot define God, that is, God's nature is not decided by our subjective experiences.
Or will you respond by saying that God is merely a myth, and that man creates God? If so, ask yourself: if God has not defined the universe, what has, if anything? If nothing has defined the universe, then what purpose can their be?...
Or, if you subscribe to the reality defined by the Bible, you will believe that: "by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence." (Col. 1:16-18)..."that in all things He may have the preeminence"...do you believe this, or will you throw it down the trash-can as myth, merely because you think that your mind is superior to God's, or because you don't really think God exists? Christ must have the preeminence, because in Him all things consist...
Once again...consider...Is God defined by man, or is man defined by God?
Edited by sac51495, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 08-14-2010 12:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nwr, posted 08-17-2010 1:36 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-17-2010 1:53 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 87 by jar, posted 08-17-2010 10:00 AM sac51495 has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 83 of 152 (574637)
08-17-2010 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by sac51495
08-17-2010 12:39 AM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
sac51495 writes:
Consider this (and please do consider it): is a clay vessel defined by its potter, that is, is the vessel's shape and form determined by the potter? If so, can the potter define the vessel in such a way that the vessel (which the potter defined) can redefine the potter himself?
The question is not relevant to anything. A clay pot is inert. It does not define anything. It does not need to define anything. It has no purpose. We have a purpose for it, but the clay pot itself does not have a purpose of its own.
sac51495 writes:
Are you not a creation of God: shaped, formed, and defined by His power, and His will?
That is unknown and unknowable.
sac51495 writes:
Can we then even hope to attempt to redefine God?
If we want a definition of God, then we must provide it ourselves, for there is nowhere else that a definition can come from. Moreover, all of the evidence shows that different people have different definitions of God, which can only be explained if they are responsible for their own definitions.
sac51495 writes:
Will we then think that our human reasoning (which is a creation of God, NOT a creator of God) is powerful enough to define the very God who created us?
I do not accept your assertions. The evidence is that human reasoning is something we learn, an acquired ability and not something we are given or born with.
sac51495 writes:
How does this relate to the topic? If God is nothing more than a creation of man, God cannot be the Creator of man.
To say that we define God is not to say that we create God. Whether or not we create God is a different question from whether or not we define God.
sac51495 writes:
But do you believe that God created us? If so, you must also believe that God defines man, not vice versa.
The first of those is unknowable. The second does not follow from the first.
sac51495 writes:
If God created man, then He gets to define man, and man cannot define God, that is, God's nature is not decided by our subjective experiences.
If God exists, whether or not he created man, then he gets to define what he means by "man". We get to define what we mean by "man" and what we mean by "God". That is the significance of meaning being subjective.
Edited by nwr, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by sac51495, posted 08-17-2010 12:39 AM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 84 of 152 (574638)
08-17-2010 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by sac51495
08-17-2010 12:39 AM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
And, by definition, if chance created us, there can be no purpose, meaning, or significance to life (think about it for a little bit...consider...can chance bring a purpose?
No, but people can. And we are people.
I think there is a certain amount of ambiguity to the word "purpose". On the one hand it connotes being produced for a specific task: so that according to this usage of the word "purpose" things that would have a purpose include a hammer, a sandwich, a gas-chamber, a battery hen, and the inhabitants of Huxley's Brave New World; and things without a purpose would include a cloud, a mountain, a butterfly, the Mandelbrot set, and a free human with the faculty of self-determination.
On the other hand, purpose can connote intentionality and aspiration, something which is absent from a hammer or a sandwich or a gas-chamber and largely absent from a battery hen or one of Huxley's "Epsilons", but which I evidently possess.
I don't particularly see why I should want a purpose in the first sense --- the sense in which a hammer or a battery hen has "purpose". It hardly seems to add to my human dignity. Why should I aspire to have a place in the Universe more comparable to that of a battery hen?
After all, if there is a God, he himself lacks a purpose in that sense. But you would presumably say that he can have a purpose in the second sense --- a purpose of his own. Well in that case so can I --- even in the absence of a God to give me a purpose in the first sense of the word.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by sac51495, posted 08-17-2010 12:39 AM sac51495 has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 85 of 152 (574653)
08-17-2010 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dawn Bertot
08-16-2010 9:44 PM


Re: Purpose
Your excitability is premature because its preceeded by an assumed and possibly false presuposition. Arent you assuming they were failured attempts. Give me an example of one of these failed attempts in argument form and lest see if its a failure, before I rehash old stuff
Are you ducking my request?
I have never seen an argument for God that was not merely childish: ontological argument, cosmological argument etc. These were refuted long, long ago.
Are you telling me you have nothing new, but only the usual tired old nonsense?
I'm disappointed! Let's see some meat here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-16-2010 9:44 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 6:22 PM Woodsy has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 86 of 152 (574691)
08-17-2010 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dawn Bertot
08-16-2010 10:25 PM


Re: Purpose
Hi, Dawn.
You'll notice that I was actually responding to EMA.
As such, none of what I wrote was actually a commentary on anything you wrote or argued.
Thus, I would appreciate it if you would stop treating my comments as if they were personal insults.
This is, of course, all moot if you are actually EMA using a different name now (which I’m pretty sure is against forum policy).
-----
Dawn Bertot writes:
When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God.
EMA has, since the beginning of this thread, avoided any attempts to demonstrate this, and has simply insisted that his opponents demonstrate the contrary. In fact, as far as I can tell, you haven’t attempted to demonstrate it yet, either.
So, I’d say that both of you have failed for at least the duration of this thread to demonstrate the existence of God or of a God-given meaning of life.
True, this doesn’t justify my comment about decades of failure (that was me once again inappropriately linking this debate with the Intelligent Design debate), so you can disregard the "decades" part.
-----
Dawn Bertot writes:
demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim.
What evidence am I to be demonstrating false? You have not presented any yet.
If you’d like, I can make up all kinds of evidence for the existence of God and for the meaning He gives to life, then show how it’s not sound.
If you don’t want that to happen, I propose that you present your own evidence.
-----
Dawn Bertot writes:
Come on Bluejay grow up mentally, dont buy into that sort of nonsensical lack of reasoning.
You ask me to grow up while flinging childish insults at me?
What did I do that could be construed as such a personal insult to you, Dawn?
-----
Dawn Bertot writes:
Rejection of a claim is still a claim, its has an obligation to demonstrate the deficiency in any sound logical argument that pits its self against reason and reality itself
Atheism is defined by what it lacks (i.e. a belief in god/s). As such, it has no grand claims to defend. Let me try to explain this:
An argument potentially consists of multiple claims.
Let’s say you present a claim (e.g. that life has a purpose), and cite evidence for this claim (e.g. a spiritual confirmation that life has a purpose).
Then, let’s say that I reject the evidence by claiming that no such spiritual confirmation occurred.
I may then claim that your alleged spiritual confirmation was the result of a mental illness, and not a spiritual confirmation at all.
Or, I may claim that your spiritual confirmation was misinterpreted, and wasn’t actually saying directly that your life had a purpose.
Or, I may claim that your spiritual confirmation was a trick played by the devil.
Or, I may claim that your spiritual confirmation was the result of years of indoctrination.
Any of these things would be a legitimate claim, and would require me to present evidence in support of it.
But, none of these is a claim that your life has no purpose: they are only claims about the nature of the evidence you use to support your claim.
Do you understand the difference there?
Since you haven’t presented any evidence yet, and since Atheists’ claims (when they happen) are all about the quality of evidence presented, there is nothing on this thread about which an Atheist has to make a claim.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-16-2010 10:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 6:23 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 90 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 7:00 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 91 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 7:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 87 of 152 (574692)
08-17-2010 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by sac51495
08-17-2010 12:39 AM


Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
sac51495 writes:
Consider this (and please do consider it): is a clay vessel defined by its potter, that is, is the vessel's shape and form determined by the potter? If so, can the potter define the vessel in such a way that the vessel (which the potter defined) can redefine the potter himself?...Answer these questions honestly, and then move on down....
nwr gave you a great answer but to show how absolutely irrelevant the question is, I will take the other side and say "Yes, what is created defines the creator."
When we think about Titian or Degas or De La Tour what defines them is what they produced. When we think of Bartok or Bach or Jobim what defines them is what they created.
sac51495 writes:
Are you not a creation of God: shaped, formed, and defined by His power, and His will? Can we then even hope to attempt to redefine God? Is not the endeavor hopeless? Will we then think that our human reasoning (which is a creation of God, NOT a creator of God) is powerful enough to define the very God who created us?
Here you begin to approach the position I have been espousing for many decades. Let's see if you really understand what you are saying.
sac51495 writes:
How does this relate to the topic? If God is nothing more than a creation of man, God cannot be the Creator of man. If God is not the Creator of man, then what is? Ultimately, it must be chance that "created" us. And, by definition, if chance created us, there can be no purpose, meaning, or significance to life (think about it for a little bit...consider...can chance bring a purpose? What are the characteristics of a purpose? Do these characteristics include origins-of-chance?...).
Sadly, as I feared, you don't get it, you cannot even follow through with the line of logic and just wander off into nonsense and fallacies.
quote:
If God is not the Creator of man, then what is? Ultimately, it must be chance that "created" us.
Nonsense. That is like saying it was chance that makes salt form cubes or mica form plates. This is what science has taught us, that it is not simply chance that causes salt to make cubes and mica to form plates.
Man too is not simply a matter of chance, but rather the evolution of life forms.
quote:
And, by definition, if chance created us, there can be no purpose, meaning, or significance to life (think about it for a little bit...consider...can chance bring a purpose?
Why couldn't chance bring a purpose? But even if what you said was true, why can't man give man a purpose?
sac51495 writes:
But do you believe that God created us? If so, you must also believe that God defines man, not vice versa. You either believe that man defines God, or that God defines man. If God created man, then He gets to define man, and man cannot define God, that is, God's nature is not decided by our subjective experiences.
I believe that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen. But I also know that man constantly and throughout history defines God. Just look at all the different gods man created in the just the Old Testament alone.
sac51495 writes:
Or will you respond by saying that God is merely a myth, and that man creates God? If so, ask yourself: if God has not defined the universe, what has, if anything? If nothing has defined the universe, then what purpose can their be?...
Again, you conflate issues. The universe is. It has no purpose. But that of course has nothing to do with me. I can have a purpose even though the universe has none.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by sac51495, posted 08-17-2010 12:39 AM sac51495 has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 88 of 152 (574766)
08-17-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Woodsy
08-17-2010 7:10 AM


Re: Purpose
Are you ducking my request?
I think anyone that knows me here knows I do not dodge answering questions, but so I dont rehash old stuff you think is failed, go ahead and present and example of a failed attempt since you ASSUME they are all failures
i dont think you understand the difference in failure and absolute proof. lets see
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Woodsy, posted 08-17-2010 7:10 AM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Woodsy, posted 08-17-2010 8:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 89 of 152 (574767)
08-17-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Blue Jay
08-17-2010 9:52 AM


Re: Purpose
Hi, Dawn.
You'll notice that I was actually responding to EMA.
sorry for the confusion I am EAM/DAWN BERTOT
This is, of course, all moot if you are actually EMA using a different name now (which I’m pretty sure is against forum policy).
That was not intentional. When I go to use my lab top at another location, I couldnt get my password to work and when i requested my password to it said it was sent but I could never find it or it wouldnt work.
I have very little patience with technical nusances
db
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2010 9:52 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 90 of 152 (574769)
08-17-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Blue Jay
08-17-2010 9:52 AM


Re: Purpose
EMA has, since the beginning of this thread, avoided any attempts to demonstrate this, and has simply insisted that his opponents demonstrate the contrary. In fact, as far as I can tell, you haven’t attempted to demonstrate it yet, either.
So, I’d say that both of you have failed for at least the duration of this thread to demonstrate the existence of God or of a God-given meaning of life.
True, this doesn’t justify my comment about decades of failure (that was me once again inappropriately linking this debate with the Intelligent Design debate), so you can disregard the "decades" part.
yo
we are fine with presenting evidence to support the existence of God if the same rules are applied to that line of reasoning which is applied say to the concept of biological evolution.
To demonstrate my point i will ask you a simple question.
Is biological evolution a demonstratable fact, yes or no.
if yes, what rules of evidence would you put forth to suggest it is actually a demonstratable fact, since we did not and cannot see it actually happening
lets see what your rules of evidence are, notice i did not say evidence but rules of evidence. How will you proceed to demonstrate to me that which you absolutley believe and believe you can demonstrate.
i submit you dont understand what rules of proceeding or what constitutes actual evidence
My point is that we are not avoiding answering or demonstrating anything, but to demonstrate that you have a whole set of rules for yourself and then one for us, in a weak attempt to show we can not demonstrate our points
first things first
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2010 9:52 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024