|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat responds to me:
quote: No, the contrapositive is true despite who is involved. If X, then Y.~Y, therefore ~X. quote: So god exists by not existing? Or are you engaging in ad hoc? Consider the possibility that the thing you mean when you say "god" isn't what is actually there. "Oh, but then *that's* what I mean!" That's the ad hoc fallacy. I don't deny that there is the possibility of some amazing being out there. After all, compare the abilities that we as humans have compared to other living things we've noticed on this planet. But just as we are not "god" compared to viruses (even though we are able to create viruses de novo), that other being would not be "god" but just another being, part and parcel of existence. But you might disagree with that concept of "god." This is why it isn't up to me to provide that definition. It isn't my burden of proof. You're the one saying that god exists. You're the one who needs to define what it is you mean by that word. If your definition is such that it results in a logical contradiction and you're happy with that, then there is nothing more that could be gained by continuing.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tangle runs away:
quote: What "rest" is there? What do you mean by "god"? You're the one saying that it can't be disproven. Well, you disproved it. Are you saying that wasn't what you meant by "god"? Then what did you mean? We'll overlook your straw godding and wait patiently for you to provide the definition of "god" that you're referring to. Remember, I'm not looking to convince anybody else but you. Thus, we need your definition, not someone else's. Go for it, sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat. Your ego is...well, we won't get into speculation about it lest that lead down an inappropriate road. Instead, we'll just remind you that you seem to be capable of defining what you mean by "harm" over in the Religious Special Pleading thread (Message 206):
Harm is a well defined legal concept, moreover everyone knows exactly what it means; particularly when they're harmed. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Or perhaps your ego is getting in your way of doing the same thing here. Spin the merry-go-round, Tangle. You know you want to. SPIN IT!Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tangle completely abandons his argument.
Well, whenever you wish to actually try, we'll be here.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat responds to me:
quote: You're the one claiming god exists. Therefore, it is your burden of proof to define what you mean by "god." We'll then examine it to see if there are any contradictions. If so, you can conceivably change your definition (after all, that's how science tends to work: You hypothesize and test and then adapt your hypothesis to the data) or, if the contradictions are bad enough, you abandon it completely.
quote: The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence is brought forward to contradict it. Note, "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer. But note, you have to be careful not to ascribe causes to effects without evidence. We know that there is a world around us (ignoring any solipsistic arguments). We know that we exist. How did we get here? "I don't know" is perfectly fine. To then insist that one of the possible causes for the effect of the world and life is "god did it" is to assume that which you are trying to prove. We don't know what you mean by "god" and you haven't provided any justification for why such a thing would even exist let alone be responsible for the effect you are claiming this "god" object caused.
quote: Incorrect. You have that backwards. It was never my burden of proof. I am not the one making the claim. It is the ones who insist that god exists who must prove the existence of such. If you're going to insist that you be allowed to keep the word "god" as a meaningful term, then you're the one who needs to provide a definition for it. It is you who is attempting to shift the burden of proof so that you can avoid responsibility for your argument. If you don't have a definition for it, then that word "god" doesn't actually refer to anything. And if it doesn't refer to anything, how can what it refers to exist? That word means something. What is it? You're the one who believes in it, so you're the one who needs to tell us what you mean. That definition might be vague and tenuous (f'rinstance, we have a term, "dark matter," but nobody can tell us what it really is...the only reason we have it is because of an effect we can directly see regarding the rotation of galaxies and our understanding of how gravity works), but it is still there. At the risk of being glib: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
quote: Then you deny logic. "May or may not" is not the standard. The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence is put forward to reject it. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming that god exists. Therefore, it is your burden of proof to show why. "I don't know" does not indicate "god did it" is a possibility. That assumes that which you are trying to prove: What do you mean by "god"?How do you know this "god" object exists? How do you know this "god" object is capable of whatever effect you are trying to ascribe responsibility to? How do you know this "god" object actually did the specific effect under examination? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tangle runs away:
quote: Incorrect. You're the one making the claim. You are the one claiming that god cannot be disproven. Therefore, it is your burden of proof to justify that claim. It starts with you defining god. Once that is done, you can the display your evidence that leads to a conclusion that this "god" object cannot be disproven. I then have the opportunity to pick through your defense of your argument and attempt to disprove it. But you have to go first because (say it with me): You're the one making the claim. When you are able to demonstrate what it is you mean by "god" and show how it cannot be disproven, your claim of a couple hundred posts ago, I'll happily read it. Till then, we can assume your claim is puff. Spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. You know you want to. SPIN IT!Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024