This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Do you Christians here think children should read the bible?

#171kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 1:18:36 PM
Far421 posted...
I have provided a practical argument that you shouldn't act on the possibility that giving your child medicine will send him to hell without evidence.


That is not an argument that the medicine will not send my child to hell. You're answering a question that wasn't asked. Furthermore, you have not shown that I am acting without evidence.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#172Far421Posted 1/30/2013 1:28:02 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
I have provided a practical argument that you shouldn't act on the possibility that giving your child medicine will send him to hell without evidence.


That is not an argument that the medicine will not send my child to hell. You're answering a question that wasn't asked. Furthermore, you have not shown that I am acting without evidence.


To prove that your child won't go to hell for taking medicine is to disprove the existence of the god that would send him there, and I agree that I can't disprove the existence of any gods that aren't internally contradictory, but that is irrelevant because reality will force you to choose an action anyway. It short, you asked the wrong question. You said you'd be happy with a day-to-day standard of proof and that's what I'm providing - something practical.

I also agree that I haven't proven that you have no evidence. However, either you do have some legitimate evidence or not. If you don't then my argument goes through. If you do then we should take it into account. De facto, no one has provided any legitimate evidence in favor for any god yet, so my practicality argument applies.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#173kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 1:39:55 PM
Far421 posted...
To prove that your child won't go to hell for taking medicine is to disprove the existence of the god that would send him there, and I agree that I can't disprove the existence of any gods that aren't internally contradictory,


Ok, so you cannot meet the burden of proof in showing that the medicine won't send my kid to hell. Lets just be clear about that.

but that is irrelevant because reality will force you to choose an action anyway. It short, you asked the wrong question. You said you'd be happy with a day-to-day standard of proof and that's what I'm providing - something practical.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. You're trying to invalidate my belief that the medicine will send my child to hell, and you can't do it. Since you can't do it, that belief will continue to inform my choices.

I also agree that I haven't proven that you have no evidence. However, either you do have some legitimate evidence or not. If you don't then my argument goes through.


If me having no evidence is required for your argument to succeed, the onus is on you to show that I have none. You haven't done that, and I suspect that you cannot.

Likewise, if your argument requires you show evidence I do have to be invalid, the onus is on you to find that evidence, show that it is the evidence I am using, and show how it is invalid. To require me to show it to you is to shift the burden of proof, which as discussed above is generally considered fallacious.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#174Far421Posted 1/30/2013 1:56:33 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
To prove that your child won't go to hell for taking medicine is to disprove the existence of the god that would send him there, and I agree that I can't disprove the existence of any gods that aren't internally contradictory,


Ok, so you cannot meet the burden of proof in showing that the medicine won't send my kid to hell. Lets just be clear about that.

but that is irrelevant because reality will force you to choose an action anyway. It short, you asked the wrong question. You said you'd be happy with a day-to-day standard of proof and that's what I'm providing - something practical.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. You're trying to invalidate my belief that the medicine will send my child to hell, and you can't do it. Since you can't do it, that belief will continue to inform my choices.

I also agree that I haven't proven that you have no evidence. However, either you do have some legitimate evidence or not. If you don't then my argument goes through.


If me having no evidence is required for your argument to succeed, the onus is on you to show that I have none. You haven't done that, and I suspect that you cannot.

Likewise, if your argument requires you show evidence I do have to be invalid, the onus is on you to find that evidence, show that it is the evidence I am using, and show how it is invalid. To require me to show it to you is to shift the burden of proof, which as discussed above is generally considered fallacious.


Like I said, you asked the wrong question. From a practical standpoint, how we should act is what matters. If you believe something with no evidence then you are being illogical, and you agreed to accept logic. I'm not going to waste time reasoning with the unreasonable.

My argument is valid in the specific case that you have no evidence. If you do have legit evidence of the existence of some god obviously we should all heed it. But no one has presented any legit evidence yet, so we have none. If ever some arises we will adjust accordingly. Acting as best we can with what info we have is what using logic is all about.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#175kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 2:01:55 PM
Far421 posted...
Like I said, you asked the wrong question. From a practical standpoint, how we should act is what matters. If you believe something with no evidence then you are being illogical, and you agreed to accept logic. I'm not going to waste time reasoning with the unreasonable.


For all you are able to demonstrate, I could be acting with a great deal of evidence, and am therefore acting with great practicality. If you want me to change the beliefs on which I act, I can't see how "Why should I?" is the wrong question.

My argument is valid in the specific case that you have no evidence.


Can you demonstrate that I don't?
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#176Far421Posted 1/30/2013 2:09:26 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
Like I said, you asked the wrong question. From a practical standpoint, how we should act is what matters. If you believe something with no evidence then you are being illogical, and you agreed to accept logic. I'm not going to waste time reasoning with the unreasonable.


For all you are able to demonstrate, I could be acting with a great deal of evidence, and am therefore acting with great practicality. If you want me to change the beliefs on which I act, I can't see how "Why should I?" is the wrong question.

My argument is valid in the specific case that you have no evidence.


Can you demonstrate that I don't?


Nope, but I can ask you to explain yourself. If you won't then I have no evidence that you have evidence and I know I have none, so I'm not gonna worry about the matter. Plus, if you really cared for your child and thought we were about him damn him with medicine you'd explain yourself anyway.

Do you understand how weak your argument becomes when, in order to get your way, you're forced into a position of needing to bluff having evidence that you don't have but refusing to explain it because you don't actually have it? If you had it you could just share and everything would be good.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#177kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 2:20:14 PM
Far421 posted...
Nope, but I can ask you to explain yourself.


And I will ask you why I should. If you can't give a good reason for that either, I will decline. That's the theme here, if you want to spur me to a particular action, you have to demonstrate why I should take that action.

Do you understand how weak your argument becomes when, in order to get your way, you're forced into a position of needing to bluff having evidence that you don't have but refusing to explain it because you don't actually have it? If you had it you could just share and everything would be good.


Am I bluffing evidence that I don't have, or are you bluffing that I don't have evidence? You just admitted you cannot determine whether or not I have any evidence, so on what basis do you accuse me of bluffing? How can you support the assertion that I'm refusing to explain my evidence because I don't have any when you cannot demonstrate that I don't have any?
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#178Far421Posted 1/30/2013 2:29:24 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
Nope, but I can ask you to explain yourself.


And I will ask you why I should. If you can't give a good reason for that either, I will decline. That's the theme here, if you want to spur me to a particular action, you have to demonstrate why I should take that action.

Do you understand how weak your argument becomes when, in order to get your way, you're forced into a position of needing to bluff having evidence that you don't have but refusing to explain it because you don't actually have it? If you had it you could just share and everything would be good.


Am I bluffing evidence that I don't have, or are you bluffing that I don't have evidence? You just admitted you cannot determine whether or not I have any evidence, so on what basis do you accuse me of bluffing? How can you support the assertion that I'm refusing to explain my evidence because I don't have any when you cannot demonstrate that I don't have any?


I have demonstrated why you should. Because we will damn your child by giving him medicine if you don't. Compelling enough? This is the same way I determine that you don't have evidence - you won't share it in this extreme situation. Did you really think we would find a nice society where we can't hold people accountable for their actions?
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#179kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 2:36:18 PM(edited)
Far421 posted...
I have demonstrated why you should. Because we will damn your child by giving him medicine if you don't.


Edit: Misread a little bit, revised my response.

You will only damn my child to hell by giving him the medicine if you are willing to assert that you don't need to meet the burden of proof to enforce your will upon me.

Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to let me enforce my will upon you without meeting the burden of proof as to why I should?

---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#180Far421Posted 1/30/2013 2:42:33 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
I have demonstrated why you should. Because we will damn your child by giving him medicine if you don't.


Edit: Misread a little bit, revised my response.

You will only damn my child to hell by giving him the medicine if you are willing to assert that you don't need to meet the burden of proof to enforce your will upon me.

Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to let me enforce my will upon you without meeting the burden of proof as to why I should?


I'm willing to assert that I don't need to prove that you lack evidence that you refuse to share to take action against you in your dealings with others, and you can do the same to me, because evidence is the basis for my morality. Logic is objective so this should remove unnecessary cases of extreme actions being taken.

I'll add that our society can already force you to testify about things legally and take your freedom from you if you refuse, so this position isn't really anything new.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292