On the Necessity of Proving Things

[AlbertBall]

And “love” here is not some wishy-washy emotion, it is action, on hehalf of the loved ones. Where is that? Where is God’s helping hand? What does God do, here and now to help us to be “saved”?

Yeah i find this to be one of the most absurd religious claims. God as described in the bible clearly does not love us, or not love as i understand it. NOTHING could ever make me subject anyone i love to eternal suffering. Yet is seems this loving god invented a specific place just for that purpose. I don’t see anyway that can be interpreted as “loving”.

If god really loved me then he would surely understand why i cannot believe in something for which there is zero evidence. I would understand and even if i hated that person, never mind loving them, i would never even dream of punishing them (or excluding them) for it. I guess i must be more moral than the god of the bible.

 

[Schn]

Why does he go to such great lengths to hide himself?

 

[R_Daneel]

Geographical location, religion of parents, religion of friends, religion (if any) of school attended.

Well, yes, this is the **true **reason… but I don’t think it is realized.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yeah i find this to be one of the most absurd religious claims. God as described in the bible clearly does not love us, or not love as i understand it. NOTHING could ever make me subject anyone i love to eternal suffering. Yet is seems this loving god invented a specific place just for that purpose. I don’t see anyway that can be interpreted as “loving”.

If god really loved me then he would surely understand why i cannot believe in something for which there is zero evidence. I would understand and even if i hated that person, never mind loving them, i would never even dream of punishing them (or excluding them) for it. I guess i must be more moral than the god of the bible.

Indeed so. There is another claim which is equally absurd. If God did not want us to disobey, he could have made two countermeasures. One, do not give that ominous command, or two, do not plant that tree in plain sight, without protection. Easy as a breeze. But even in the alleged situation, he could have just forgiven the disobedience… what kind of loving parent would subscribe to the notion: “one strike, and you are out!”?

And that is not even half of it. Then - they say - God decided to give us a second chance, after many thousands of years. He came down, in the divine-human form of Jesus, and allowed us to murder him. Not some minor disobedience, but actually murder! That murder was somehow necessary to forgive us.

I cannot imagine a more insulting thing to say about God, even if I tried. To portray the Creator of the Universe as a weirdo, who cannot simply forgive a small transgression, but can forgive the most hideous deed ever?

It reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbs cartoon. Hobbs says: “the most convicing evidence that there are intelligent beings in the universe is that they never tried to visit us”. Based upon that cartoon I say: “the most convincing evidence against God’s existence is that if he existed, he would not tolerate his followers to spread such vicious rumors about him”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You should believe in science textbooks because if you wanted to, you could repeat the experiments that lead to those conclusions and obtain the same result. This is the core of science.

verification/falsification schemes are self-refuting. simply because a such a proposition has utility value, doesnt mean that it yeilds truth value.

for instrance, some superseded theories yeilded great utility value, they worked well and were very useful… and they were entirely false.

caloric theory - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory#Successes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

this guy completely evisceratez “scientific truth”

4entertain.net/the-galileo-conspiracy-5-questions-your-science-professors-hope-you-never-ask/

Question 1. Professor, isn’t it true, that when you call a model or theory “true” merely because it makes accurate predictions that you in fact commit the fallacy called “affirming the consequent?”

Answer: You’d better believe it, Bucko. And nearly all scientists do this on a regular basis. Coincidentally enough, so do the textbooks these guys write. “If a mother, then also a woman” seems obvious enough. In logic, this takes the form, “If P, then Q.” But reasoning in the reverse direction leads to trouble. “If a woman, then a mother [Q, therefore P]” doesn’t ring true at all. Many women do not practice motherhood. Likewise, “If my theory is true, we should find ‘Q’ to be the case [If P, then Q] does not in any way validate the reverse, “We did find ‘Q’ to be the case, therefore my model is true [Q, therefore P].”

This is like the man who argues that “If it is bread, it does not talk. It does not in fact talk, therefore it must be bread.” Imagine that: science professors make a career of reasoning that poorly, and your sandwich never said a word.

Question #2. Professor, isn’t it true that many highly successful theories in the past gained the allegiance of entire scientific communities, only to suffer rejection later as so much molarky by the same group?

Answer: Yes. In fact Dr. Larry Laudan, former chair of the history and philosophy of science department at the University of Pittsburgh, wrote a book (Science and Values) where he catalogued over 30 such theories. He indicated that he could have lengthened his list extensively (and others have done this). These truth-status flip-floppers trounce about like a salmon on deck, where “true yesterday” becomes “false today.” Here, truth comes with an expiration date like raspberry yogurt. And who knows, these theories may yet make a comeback — only to get smoked again (as salmon are want to do).

This tells us that theoretical science shows itself fickle when it comes to truth-telling. In court, they call this “perjury,” but let us avoid the unpleasantries of name-calling. One commentator on this problem recently put it quite sublimely in these words: “If the history of science were a single person, it would present to the world just that sort of person we should least want to see driving heavy machinery or carrying sharp objects.”

Question #3. Professor, isn’t it true that theories considered false today by the scientific majority, as well as in the past, have often turned out to be very useful? And doesn’t this show that no established relationship between true theories and useful theories exists?

Answer: Yes, and yes. And this shows from the empirical facts of history that any theory might be highly useful, and yet utterly false, so that it’s utility offers no real guide to whether or not it’s true. And you guessed it: Dr. Laudan has a long list of these successful-but-false theories too. And he isn’t the only one.

science as a measure of truth is an utter farce. not even scientists should believe it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This debate ended the second you lot tried to claim the evidence for the moon landings are the same as the bible. When you are dealing with that level of ignorance debate becomes impossible.

he didnt make that claim, i did.

further, your only defense to the claim boiled down to an ‘incredulous stare.’

so if it is such a level of ignorance, why couldnt you refute it? you just kept saying that it the evidence for the moonlanding is obviously true, while the same documentary and physical evidence for the Bible is false.

we exposed a hypocritical double standard.

causing a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

These people simply do not understand science.

we have finished university and have plenty of education in science. your the one that doesnt understand the limits of science.

Anyone that understands the method knows that testimony in the way it is accepted in religion has NO PLACE in science.

youre still confusing testimony and the scientific method. testimony is the method by which you know some event that you did not witness. these include all claims you did not witness, even the ones involving some application of the scientific method.

tell me, if this is false, then how do you know about anything you didnt witness?

For them to claim that it is a double standard to accept the evidence of the moon landing yet reject the bible is so stupid it makes my head hurt.

then surely you have a refutation, that hasnt been crushed already? make a list and i will deal with all of them. see your fighting a well established discipline called the philosophy of science. something that you havent had yet in university. otherwise you wouldnt keep fighting it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is not a whole lot one can do about it. We can either leave, or we can attempt to educate them. Some might listen. And the ones who are not just ignorant, but obnoxious about it, the easy way out is to ignore them. That is what I am doing.

that doesnt work. the people you ignore can still refute your arguments, and other people will still see it, ignoring it just makes it look like you cant defend your ideas. but go ahead. it fits my purposes of exposing atheism as a cherished belief that cant stand rational examination.

Let’s not generalize, there are quite a few people with whom one can conduct a civilized conversation. The rest is a small, but very loud mouthed minority. Ignore works wonders. Not that they realize it, but it is their problem.

your idea of a civilized conversation from my experience, is one where your cherished beiief isnt attacked.

and yes we know when we are being ignored, after all i have few thousand more posts than you. i also know that it just makes your postion weaker, after all you cant defend against argument that you dont respond to, but the general audience still sees them.

why do you think i continue to refute your arguements after you failed to respond?

 

[Image_of_God]

And your “common sense” can cause you tremendous losses, if you are willing to put your money up. Here is a game I offer to you: We assemble 30 people in a room, randomly chosen from the street. I will bet a 1000 dollars that at least two of them celebrate their birthday on the same day of the year. You can offer your 1000 dollars that all of them celebrate their birthday on different days of the year. Common sense tells you that you have a huge chance to win. After all it is only 30 people, and there are 366 days. I am willing to play this game hundreds of times. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

And why did you believe that at least two of them celebrate their birthday on the same day of the year? Because you thought it to be reasonable.

If common sense is not it, please explain to me why I should believe material matter exists and why I should believe in the various theorems and facts and laws of science and mathematics and why I should believe that certain historical events occurred. If these things are not supposed to be believed because they are “self-evident”, then why should we believe them? Prove to me that they exist…all of them. Maybe after your done proving them to me, you will understand. If you can figure out a way, I will accept. But I’m almost certain that there is no other way.

 

[Image_of_God]

That is not true. The fact that there are events and places described in the Bible which are corroborated by external sources does not lend any credence to the events which are not corroborated by such external sources. If a math textbook would contain thousands of correct theorems and their rigorous proofs, and one incorrect theorem with a faulty proof, then the existence of those thousands of correct ones would not validate the faulty one. There is no “correctness” by virtue of association.

Why do you guys commit such elemental fallacies?

You have not proven them false. Just because I can’t prove them true, does mean that their false. It’s like any other historical event, which is what we’ve been trying to say the whole time. Of course, you probably won’t agree with me, because you are predisposed to think that the Bible is nothing more than “mythology” for the most part. Yet another act of faith.

You have no proof that we have committed elemental fallacies. Another way to illustrate our point: it’s merely something you believe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The trick is that God is supposed to be active in this world. God is supposed to love us. And “love” here is not some wishy-washy emotion, it is action, on hehalf of the loved ones. Where is that? Where is God’s helping hand? What does God do, here and now to help us to be “saved”?

first, your idea of love is self serving, as though parents dont love children when they let them make their own choices. but that aside “here” and “now” we have the Church. why do you think Christ founded a Church? specifically so that we should have help “here” and “now”

I can’t help that. I stay polite, even though the problems I present are provocative. Fortunately there are quite a few posters around here with whom I can conduct a polite conversation, even if we only agree to disagree at the end.

you dont stay polite. if you dont realize why she said this, then just ask, i will collect the examples from your posts, to demonstrate you belittleing, condescending, and being rude to others. you can help it, but its your reaction to confrontation, as if anyone who doesnt agree with you is not as smart as you.

I took the liberty of correcting an obvious typo in your post.

Now, let me ask you this: “precisely what makes the Bible different from all the other sacred books of other religions?”. For example the Koran, or the Book of Mormon? How do you decide that all those other books are “fakes” and yours is the “real McCoy”? What criteria do you use? It is meant as a serious question.

because our faith is the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies, dozens of them, over millenia, came true in Christ. that is as close to mathematical certainty as you can get as demonstrated to you before.

so if we know our faith is true by the certainty of mathematical exposition, then we know all other faiths are wrong.

pretty simple.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Geographical location, religion of parents, religion of friends, religion (if any) of school attended.

or the actual basis of the faith. Messianic Prophecy. mathematically undeniable.

 

[Image_of_God]

lol this cracks me up. If you can’t understand the flaw when you say there’s too many to repeat them all, I can’t help you.

Of course it seems silly! I am doubting something that should be “self-evident”. I should believe it because its reasonable.

What is the flaw? Can you repeat all those experiments that “verified” what is taken as fact today in science. Can you demonstrate all those theorems that are accepted as true. Can you demonstrate all the laws. Unless you can, then you simply accept them as self evident. You have no absolute proof that they are true. Please, show me the flaw because I don’t see one.

Sense data is pretty good. And there’s no evidence for alternative explanations of the world.

I don’t know what you mean by “sense” data. Unless you’re there for any test, you are simply trusting that the scientists didn’t skew anything.

Do you mean intuition or something? Cause following reason is basically the opposite of what you seem to be doing. Many concepts with large backing of evidence are unintuitive.

We follow intuition because we believe it to be reasonable and we follow our reason because intuition advices us to do so.

Hmm. Yes. I guess evidence doesn’t matter. Well, screw gravity, I’m going to fly! Taking the inaccuracies of past models as evidence present ones are incorrect is fallacious.

Here, you are appealing to reason and not evidence. You have proved our point once again.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yeah i find this to be one of the most absurd religious claims. God as described in the bible clearly does not love us, or not love as i understand it. NOTHING could ever make me subject anyone i love to eternal suffering. Yet is seems this loving god invented a specific place just for that purpose. I don’t see anyway that can be interpreted as “loving”.

the problem is in your understanding of love. people choose to separate themselves from G-d, which is what we consider hell to be. just as people choose to break the law and go to prison.

but thats the point of loving someone, letting them make the decision to love you back, or not.

If god really loved me then he would surely understand why i cannot believe in something for which there is zero evidence.

you are simply ignoring the evidece given, that the rest of us do not. do you think G-d doesnt know the difference? after all He left you plenty of evidence, you just dont accept it.

I would understand and even if i hated that person, never mind loving them, i would never even dream of punishing them (or excluding them) for it. I guess i must be more moral than the god of the bible.

so you would force them to love you, you would force them to accept you? thats not love. thats rape.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, yes, this is the **true **reason… but I don’t think it is realized.

that may be the reason for a lot of people that dont put thought into it, but luckily, the faith is based on a mathematical certainty, of the identity of Christ.

not everyone needs tyo know how a car works in order to drive.

 

[Image_of_God]

he didnt make that claim, i did.

further, your only defense to the claim boiled down to an ‘incredulous stare.’

so if it is such a level of ignorance, why couldnt you refute it? you just kept saying that it the evidence for the moonlanding is obviously true, while the same documentary and physical evidence for the Bible is false.

we exposed a hypocritical double standard.

causing a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

I don’t know if we can convince them of this truth, even though it is subliminally in most of their posts. Empiricism and atheism are no less beliefs than Christianity.

 

[AlbertBall]

so you would force them to love you, you would force them to accept you? thats not love. thats rape.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, I WOULD NOT PUNISH THEM!! I thought i wrote that in plain English??? Wait! I DID… albertball-“i would never even dream of punishing them”

The straw-man is strong with you.

So you do not believe in a fire and brimstone hell?

I really wish you would make you mind up. You all claim to have a relationship with god yet you cant agree on one aspect of this “god”.

 

[AlbertBall]

then surely you have a refutation, that hasnt been crushed already? make a list and i will deal with all of them…

OK lets go one at a time, realllllllllllll slow for you .

I can see the ISS with my one eyes, i have a 10" meade. Crush away…

 

[Schn]

verification/falsification schemes are self-refuting. simply because a such a proposition has utility value, doesnt mean that it yeilds truth value.

for instrance, some superseded theories yeilded great utility value, they worked well and were very useful… and they were entirely false.

caloric theory - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory#Successes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

this guy completely evisceratez “scientific truth”

4entertain.net/the-galileo-conspiracy-5-questions-your-science-professors-hope-you-never-ask/

By self-refuting, I think you mean self-improving. Science gets closer and closer to inaccuracy (and if you’re cynical you take this to be “periodically wrong”), while religion is wrong forever.

science as a measure of truth is an utter farce. not even scientists should believe it.

Throw your computer away, clearly it’s working mechanisms will be proven false one day!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t know if we can convince them of this truth, even though it is subliminally in most of their posts. Empiricism and atheism are no less beliefs than Christianity.

the people that show up here to argue, just as when i raid an atheist forum, are utterly convinced of their opinions. i doubt that it is reasonable to think that we are changing the minds of the posters involved. rather, we are using them as models of atheism, to demonstrate the false foundations of the atheist position. there are a great number of people both members and guests who see these arguments and make their own judgements with them in mind. we do not struggle for the heart of the atheist, but for the hearts of the innocent.

when i was an atheist, it required a ‘road to damascus’ moment. i think it is the same for others who came home. G-d changes hearts and minds, not our words. so i mean to protect and arm the innocent. not to change the minds that i cannot.