On the Necessity of Proving Things

  • Thread starter Thread starter Image_of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is significant that you are less interested in the rational basis of theism than the allegedly inferior intelligence of theists! The truth is you love to fool yourself that God is a myth devised to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge! Your wishful thinking is based on faith in a blind, loveless plenipotentiary - inanimate matter - capable of producing persons with a capacity for love… 🙂
There is no rational basis for beleif in god, hence why it takes “faith”. Now you are free to beileve what you want, that is your choice, just do not try and pass of your belief as knowledge. For that it is not.
 
There is no rational basis for beleif in god,
other than the mountains of documentation, the arguments from reason, and all those eyewitnesses over the course of 1500 years.
hence why it takes “faith”.
faith is a theological virtue, not the same thing as unwarranted belief.
Now you are free to beileve what you want, that is your choice, just do not try and pass of your belief as knowledge. For that it is not.
if all the evidence we have for G-d does not lead one to resaonable belief, than you cant believe in anything that you didnt witness yourself.

so, yes it is knowledge.
 
if all the evidence we have for G-d does not lead one to resaonable belief, than you cant believe in anything that you didnt witness yourself.

so, yes it is knowledge.
It is not my fault you don’t understand that not all claims are equally valid. It is also not my fault you cannot understand the difference between belief and knowledge. It most defiantly NOT knowledge.

Here this might help you out…

youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/3/80nhqGfN6t8
 
It is significant that you are less interested in the rational basis of theism than the allegedly inferior intelligence of theists! The truth is you love to fool yourself that God is a myth devised to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge! Your wishful thinking is based on faith in a blind, loveless plenipotentiary - inanimate matter - capable of producing persons with a capacity for love…
It is you who are trying to pass off your belief that “matter did it” is knowledge yet the sole certainty we have is of our intangible thoughts and our intangible minds - which are **a rational basis for belief **in a Supreme Mind. If you were mindless you wouldn’t even know that matter exists! So much for your irrational faith in the blind, loveless plenipotentiary… 🙂
 
It is not my fault you don’t understand that not all claims are equally valid.
then please enlighten me as to why they arent? so far the reasons given have all been refuted and you have been given the evidence.
  1. empiricism - false measure of truth because it is a logical contradiction, self refuting
  2. verification/falsification schemes- false for the same reason empiricism is.
  3. “miracles” - clarkes 3rd law (any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic)
  4. outside verification - plenty of it, several dozen different books, written over the course of 1500 years by different people from different places and different times. simply because all these books were collected into one canon centuries later, doesnt make them a single book any more than the encyclopedia is.
It is also not my fault you cannot understand the difference between belief and knowledge. It most defiantly NOT knowledge.
education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/belief
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge
knowledge
2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
this demonstrates the double standard of evidence we keep talking about.

is the moonlanding knowledge or belief? if its belief than how do you know its true? you dont. but you accept that it is, biblical events you dont accept. but you have no reason that we cant refute to hold a double standard of evidence.

you simply wish to believe that one event is true while another is not.
Here this might help you out…
he isnt making any different assertions than you are.

back them up with something that we havent yet refuted.
 
this demonstrates the double standard of evidence we keep talking about.

is the moonlanding knowledge or belief? if its belief than how do you know its true? you dont. but you accept that it is, biblical events you dont accept. but you have no reason that we cant refute to hold a double standard of evidence.

you simply wish to believe that one event is true while another is not.

he isnt making any different assertions than you are.

back them up with something that we havent yet refuted.
You have not refuted anything. Like i said i cant be bothered going over the evidence for the moon landing v the bible again. If you really believe that the mountains of observable, testable, repeatable evidence for the moon landings is the same ancient scribblings of hearsay evidence from people who had close to no understanding of the cosmos, then you are beyond talking to.

Name me ONE fact that can be TESTED for god, i can name you 100’s that can be tested for the moon landings. This is just absurd. :o
 
You have not refuted anything. Like i said i cant be bothered going over the evidence for the moon landing v the bible again.
why not? if it wasnt refuted then surely you can prove to me that it occured, but last time, you couldnt, do you have soemthing new?
If you really believe that the mountains of observable,
you didnt observe the moonlanding
testable, repeatable evidence for the moon landings
you have tested and repeated the moonlandings? you cant prove it was done the first time much less any subsequent events
is the same ancient scribblings of hearsay evidence from people who had close to no understanding of the cosmos, then you are beyond talking to.
i think the moonlanding happened myself, but the entire point of this exercise is to demonstrate that atheists hold a double standard of evidence that they only apply to religious claims, we could be talkinng about any historical event, you happened to choose the moonlanding, as most atheists do because it seems the easiest to defend, but as you found out from our previous discussions on the matter, it isnt that wasy to defend.

the end result is always a refusal to discuss the matter. thats called avoiding cognitive dissonance.
Name me ONE fact that can be TESTED for god, i can name you 100’s that can be tested for the moon landings. This is just absurd. :o
like what? are you talking about the self-refuting verification/falsification systems again? as in something is true only if it can be verified? except of course the idea that something is only true that it can be verified?🙂

you have never verified the moonlanding happened yet you believe it did. double standard.
 
Your dishonesty in debate comes shining through here. You “quote” part definitions to try and warp the truth…

“4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind b archaic : a branch of learning”

God it NOT known. It is NOT knowledge. Its all subjective.
even if you feel this definition is relevant, G-d is still knowledge by this sense as well. information acquired by human kind. its documented in dozens of books of the Bible.

still knowledge.
 
really? your refutation is “oh, dear” ? thats it? you dont have any better refutation than that?
Your “claims” have been refuted so many times, that it is not funny any more. All those detailed explanations went right over your head, and, consequently, you keep repeating the same nonsense… there is no better way to answer than a desperate: “Oh, dear”. Do you really think that the Second World War, the Holocaust have been as poorly documented as the stories in the Bible? Doesn’t it dawn upon you that you are alone with your claims, that none of your brethren believes that you are correct, but out of sheer goodwill they do not scream at you in their frustration? I bet they would be delighted if you did not put them into such awkward position. I also bet that they feel ashamed to be in the same camp.
 
Your “claims” have been refuted so many times, that it is not funny any more. All those detailed explanations went right over your head, and, consequently, you keep repeating the same nonsense… there is no better way to answer than a desperate: “Oh, dear”. Do you really think that the Second World War, the Holocaust have been as poorly documented as the stories in the Bible? Doesn’t it dawn upon you that you are alone with your claims, that none of your brethren believes that you are correct, but out of sheer goodwill they do not scream at you in their frustration? I bet they would be delighted if you did not put them into such awkward position. I also bet that they feel ashamed to be in the same camp.
I for one will stand beside him and say that many who rail against Church and her followers, hold to a double standard when it comes to what counts as evidence.
 
Your “claims” have been refuted so many times, that it is not funny any more. All those detailed explanations went right over your head, and, consequently, you keep repeating the same nonsense… there is no better way to answer than a desperate: “Oh, dear”.
please demonstrate these ‘detailed explanations’. i believe i have shown how each one is either a logical contradiction, a logical fallacy, or a outright double standard.

if i havent, or i have missed something, then please demonstrate it specifically, and i will be happy to take this oppurtunity to review it.

of course if you cannot or will not demonstrate and defend these alleged ‘detailed explanations’ then i can safely assume that this is yet another unfounded assertion.
Do you really think that the Second World War, the Holocaust have been as poorly documented as the stories in the Bible?
i dont think the stories in the Bible are poorly documented, there are dozens of books all verifying the course of G-d and mans relationship over 1500 years. do you have any evidence for these assertions?
Doesn’t it dawn upon you that you are alone with your claims, that none of your brethren believes that you are correct, but out of sheer goodwill they do not scream at you in their frustration?
no, ive never met one who disagrees with me after the argument is explained.
I bet they would be delighted if you did not put them into such awkward position.
what awkward position is there in demonstrating the double standard of evidence that most atheists apply?
I also bet that they feel ashamed to be in the same camp.
no, the idea that atheists have a double standard of evidence is pretty much par for the course in this community.

as you have repeatedly refused to adress epistemology, i doubt you will demonstrate these ‘detailed explanations’ since you are well aware the argument is unwinnable. unless you care to try again. 😃
 
I for one will stand beside him and say that many who rail against Church and her followers, hold to a double standard when it comes to what counts as evidence.
That is the whole point. There is no double standard. I expect the same kind of evidence for all claims, the difference being in the nature of the claims.

When it comes to claims about the physical world, the evidence is actual demonstration. When it comes to historical claims, the evidence is having different, unrelated documents describing the same alleged event in a fashion which substantiates the event’s occurrence. However, this type of evidence is only applicable to events in the past. God is claimed to be alive and well today, so hearsay type of evidence is insufficient. The claims about “supernatural” cannot be substantiated by either one of these methods. The only “evidence” ever shown is a hearsay type, unbelievable stories collected in a book by several authors, written long time after the alleged events supposedly happened. Even the believers cannot agree which parts are supposed to be taken literally, and which parts are allegorical.

The problem with WSP is that he confuses the amount of evidence required for historical claims. Maybe you agree with him that the evidence for the moon landing (or the second World War, or the Holocaust - neither of which he explictly mentioned, merely implied) is on par with the evidence for the miracles in the Bible. If so, then there is nothing to talk about. I can chalk up one more person into his camp. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, they documented the events in good detail. They could not have missed the incredible miracles described in the Bible. Yet, there is not one word about them, anywhere.

There is one book only, no more. This book is a collection, and the stories included in it were voted upon, whether to be included or dismissed. The stories were written by unknown people, none of whom were actually eye-witnesses to the events described. They even the describe the same event and differ not only in insignificant details, but there are serious discrepancies in their descriptions. Textual analysis shows that the stories purported to have been written by one person, were actually written by several people. And that concoction is supposed to be a serious evidence on par with the incredible amout of documentation proving the moon landing? Do you really want to say that? Come on, buddy…
 
That is the whole point. There is no double standard. I expect the same kind of evidence for all claims, the difference being in the nature of the claims.

When it comes to claims about the physical world, the evidence is actual demonstration.
empiricism is self refuting. the claim that knowledge can only be gained through the senses is knowledge that wasnt gained through the senses.

a false standard fo evidence, is no standard of evidence at all. its an opinion that admits to being a logical contradiction
When it comes to historical claims, the evidence is having different, unrelated documents describing the same alleged event in a fashion which substantiates the event’s occurrence.
if you really felt that way then we wouldnt be having this conversation, you would accept the various books of the Bible that discuss the life of Christ.
However, this type of evidence is only applicable to events in the past. God is claimed to be alive and well today, so hearsay type of evidence is insufficient. The claims about “supernatural” cannot be substantiated by either one of these methods. The only “evidence” ever shown is a hearsay type, unbelievable stories collected in a book by several authors, written long time after the alleged events supposedly happened. Even the believers cannot agree which parts are supposed to be taken literally, and which parts are allegorical.
not hearsay, but eyewitnesses to the events. and of course they wrote about the events after they happened. that is how every story written in all of history works.
The problem with WSP is that he confuses the amount of evidence required for historical claims. Maybe you agree with him that the evidence for the moon landing (or the second World War, or the Holocaust - neither of which he explictly mentioned, merely implied) is on par with the evidence for the miracles in the Bible. If so, then there is nothing to talk about. I can chalk up one more person into his camp.
dont assert, defend your epistemology and let him make up his own mind.
The Romans were meticulous record keepers, they documented the events in good detail. They could not have missed the incredible miracles described in the Bible. Yet, there is not one word about them, anywhere.
lets see
  1. Judea was a roman backwater, full of atheists, as far as the romans were concerned.
  2. very few people could read or write
  3. almost all who could were Jews of the san hedrin. with a motive to conceal or destroy any such recordings some passing scribe might make.
  4. being Christian, and possession of artifacts was a death sentence for the first 3 centuries of Christianity
  5. then the romans overran and destroyed Judea in A.D. 70, still got the Temple walls though!
  6. then after a few centuries of persecution, the muslims took over for another 1900 years. they too would have destroyed what they found blasphemous.
seems to me that there is nothing strange in the amount of documentation that we have.
There is one book only, no more.
absolutely false. there are several dozen different books.

Old Testament

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

Ruth

1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

2 Kings

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Ezra

Nehemiah

Tobit

Judith

Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Job

Psalms

Proverbs

Ecclesiastes

Song of Songs

Wisdom

Sirach

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Lamentations

Baruch

Ezekiel

Daniel

Hosea

Joel

Amos

Obadiah

Jonah

Micah

Nahum

Habakkuk

Zephaniah

Haggai

Zechariah

Malachi
New Testament

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation
This book is a collection, and the stories included in it were voted upon, whether to be included or dismissed.
based on the oral history, and comparison to known texts. big deal.
The stories were written by unknown people, none of whom were actually eye-witnesses to the events described.
this is absolutely false, we know or have a good idea who wrote most books, and that they were eyewitnesses
They even the describe the same event and differ not only in insignificant details, but there are serious discrepancies in their descriptions.
different people, different viewpoints. big deal
Textual analysis shows that the stories purported to have been written by one person, were actually written by several people.
different scholars say different things.
And that concoction is supposed to be a serious evidence on par with the incredible amout of documentation proving the moon landing? Do you really want to say that? Come on, buddy…
then present your evidence for the moonlanding. i will poke the same holes in it that i did before, simply to demonstrate your double standard.
 
empiricism is self refuting. the claim that knowledge can only be gained through the senses is knowledge that wasnt gained through the senses.
Hogwash. That is not what empiricism is - and this have been pointed out to you many times. Nevertheless you keep on asserting it - because accepting the proper definition would invalidate your cherished belief.
not hearsay, but eyewitnesses to the events. and of course they wrote about the events after they happened. that is how every story written in all of history works.
Biblical scholars know and have no problem admitting it that the NT was not written for **at least 40 years **after the events supposedly happened. Considering that the life expectancy in that era was less than 40 years, your alleged eye-witnesses were all dead. And don’t forget that Jesus personally promised that “not all present will be dead before the Kingdom of God will arrive to Earth” - which of course did not happen, but with such a short deadline the believers did not see any reason to record the events - even if they were literate - which they probably were not.
  1. Judea was a roman backwater, full of atheists, as far as the romans were concerned.
  2. very few people could read or write
  3. almost all who could were Jews of the san hedrin. with a motive to conceal or destroy any such recordings some passing scribe might make.
  4. being Christian, and possession of artifacts was a death sentence for the first 3 centuries of Christianity
  5. then the romans overran and destroyed Judea in A.D. 70, still got the Temple walls though!
  6. then after a few centuries of persecution, the muslims took over for another 1900 years. they too would have destroyed what they found blasphemous.
Sheer nonsense. The Romans were extremely tolerant toward other religions. They did not intend to convert anyone to theirs. They even awarded Roman citizenship to the inhabitants of the captured lands. They recorded the histories of all the other captured lands - made no exceptions. They recorded the events which really took place in Judea, too. Yet, none of these “miraculous” events were ever recorded. There is no independent corroboration for any of the events described in the Bible.
seems to me that there is nothing strange in the amount of documentation that we have.
Which only shows **your **double standard, not mine.
absolutely false. there are several dozen different books.
All written by the believers. No skepic made the slightest footnote.
based on the oral history, and comparison to known texts. big deal.
Yes, it is a big deal. A subjective selection of bishops.
this is absolutely false, we know or have a good idea who wrote most books, and that they were eyewitnesses
Then you know more than the most prominent Biblical scolars do. Why don’t you enlighten them with your superior knowlege? Include the full names, addresses, emails and phone numbers of the authors, and include the video footage as they witnessed and recorded the events. :rolleyes:
different people, different viewpoints. big deal
Except that they had the same viewpoint, and still differ in their descriptions.
different scholars say different things.
Ah, so now they are scholars, not illiterate people as you said above. You sure change your argument quickly…
then present your evidence for the moonlanding. i will poke the same holes in it that i did before, simply to demonstrate your double standard.
Look it up on the web. While you are at it, poke some holes in the historical evidence for the Holocaust. I am sure there will be some very happy “people” who will be delighted with your “research”.
 
Hogwash. … the proper definition would invalidate your cherished belief.
why didnt you post the proper definition?

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/empiricism
em·pir·i·cism (m-pîr-szm) KEY
The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
it seems to be the dictionary definition. is there another definition that is applicable to my statement? please post it and we can discuss it.
Biblical scholars know and have no problem admitting it that the NT was not written for **at least 40 years **after the events supposedly happened.
ok
Considering that the life expectancy in that era was less than 40 years, your alleged eye-witnesses were all dead.
thats laughable. first, the average life span says nothing about individuals. second, it rises substantially for all eras when you eliminate infant mortality.
And don’t forget that Jesus personally promised that “not all present will be dead before the Kingdom of God will arrive to Earth” - which of course did not happen, but with such a short deadline the believers did not see any reason to record the events -.
i love it when atheists misquote the Bible. i had one of the brights over here last weekend, and he did the same thing talking about Messianic Prophecy. its not just you, but really, double check before you do that.🙂

here is the actual qoute
28 Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
they saw him later, after the Ressurection.
Sheer nonsense. The Romans were extremely tolerant toward other religions.
false. Christians were persecuted for the next 3 centuries
They did not intend to convert anyone to theirs.
false, they called Christains atheists, and offered them conversion or death.
They even awarded Roman citizenship to the inhabitants of the captured lands. They recorded the histories of all the other captured lands - made no exceptions.
proof?
They recorded the events which really took place in Judea, too.
proof?
Yet, none of these “miraculous” events were ever recorded.
so? ive listed a great number of reasons why such things would have been destroyed if found, and that there is little reason to suspect that they were recorded in the first place as all the scribes belonged to the sanhedrin.

frankly, we keep much better records, but you would have no reason to suspect that the government has soemone following around a successful faith healer around west virgnia, do you? of course not.
There is no independent corroboration for any of the events described in the Bible.
there is, the various books of the Bible. but lets be clear, there is hardly any record of anything at all from those times. this is really just another impossible standard. i dont see why you bother to do that. you, like all of us are obsessed with G-d. it doesnt benefit you to make such statements, first because we know they are impossible standards, but second, because you cant really fid out more about G-d if you just reject everything based on those impossible standards. youre shooting yourself in the foot doing that.
Which only shows **your **double standard, not mine.
how so? i only have the one, but then i dont reject the moonlanding or the Biblical events. my worldview encompasses both of them.
All written by the believers. No skepic made the slightest footnote.
if you had witnessed what they did, you would be a believer too.
Yes, it is a big deal. A subjective selection of bishops.
subjective too who? back then you had to be able to trace your teaching back to an apostle in order to preach, their were a great number of people who all had the same oral history.
Then you know more than the most prominent Biblical scolars do. recorded the events. :rolleyes:
i dont kow any who say we dont have a good idea who wrote the various books. the provenance may be questioned, but it isnt blind, and for everyone that says white, i can find one who will say black. dueling scholars dotn mean much to me. im interested only i what the Church has to say on the matter, because they are the only ones authorized by Christ
Except that they had the same viewpoint, and still differ in their descriptions.
ive seen a million witness statements, and 2 people standing side by side will describe the same event in significantly different ways, 10 minutes later, much less a couple of decades. no big deal.
Ah, so now they are scholars, not illiterate people as you said above. You sure change your argument quickly…
i was refering to modern Biblical scholars here. not the scribes of the san hedrin.
Look it up on the web. While you are at it, poke some holes in the historical evidence for the Holocaust. I am sure there will be some very happy “people” who will be delighted with your “research”.
ive already poked holes in it most recently for albert. though its funny that instead of backing up your assertions with the evidence of the moonlanding, you try to intimate that denial of the moonlanding is tantamount to denial of the Holocaust. thats pretty bad form, if you cant win on the merits of your argument, its very uncool to try too win, on the backs of those innocents who lost their lives.

some things are sacrosanct. 😊
 
Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be true?

I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas. It is kind of like geometry, I think. There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on “unproven truths” called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.For this reason (including others), I accept neither materialism nor empiricism to be true. Immaterial things could be just like the “unproven truths” (Christianity holds some to be revealed) mentioned previously. Just because something isn’t proven (rationally) does not mean it isn’t true.

I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can’t faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?
What postulate is being used when one proves that 1 + 1 = 2 by referring to the simple addition of two objects, say one dot plus one dot equals two dots ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top