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

The falsifibility of your claims

#41Julian_CaesarPosted 5/20/2013 3:21:05 PM
From: JonWood007 | #037
Once again, I'm not interested in getting in a semantics debate about this.

http://memegenerator.net/instance/37994601

Let the scientists work out the semantics until then.


That doesn't give you license to use "universe" as ambiguously as you're doing when you refer to these findings as "other universes", in the context of a topic discussing the claim that an extra-universal being exists. The reason I'm being an ass about this is because when you use that word flippantly, you're allowing it to mean both "things which exist outside of our universe" and "things which interact in observable ways with our universe." That's a pretty meaningful distinction considering what we're currently discussing; in other discussions it wouldn't be such a big deal.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#42JonWood007Posted 5/20/2013 4:04:29 PM(edited)

Please tell me how it would be possible to substantiate a claim that Jesus, the son of a construction worker in Detroit, raised a man from the dead in Ann Arbor after he had been dead for several days.


You'd need to provide a large amount of documentation, to say the least. Video evidence, etc. It would be hard to do, admittedly, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.


That doesn't give you license to use "universe" as ambiguously as you're doing when you refer to these findings as "other universes", in the context of a topic discussing the claim that an extra-universal being exists. The reason I'm being an ass about this is because when you use that word flippantly, you're allowing it to mean both "things which exist outside of our universe" and "things which interact in observable ways with our universe." That's a pretty meaningful distinction considering what we're currently discussing; in other discussions it wouldn't be such a big deal.


I used their words, take it up with the article.

You really don't seem to understand the whole "Im not interested in getting in a semantic debate" thing here.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#43DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/21/2013 5:23:20 PM
Basically, faith is a choice from the get-go. If you really believe God exists, no proof can exist to prove you wrong; if you really believe God doesn't exist, no proof can exist to prove you wrong either.


This really, truly does not follow the more I think about it.

Ok let's say somehow 2+2=5 was an undeniable, intrinsic doctrine to Christianity. So if you had faith from the get-go, when the correct solution is shown to be 2+2=4 you're saying you would not feel disproven? You're just appealing to your theological believes, me thinks. I think you're pretending that I would be too prideful to accept Jesus if he were to come down here and prove himself to me.

How would He prove that the control was non-material? More importantly, how would you refrain from rationalizing away what you see as something other than miraculous? Just as many people did when Jesus actually walked the earth?


If he's showing himself to not have to do anything to perform his miracles, then the burden of proof is on those making the claim that it is MATERIAL. My standards are happily sitting at "if someone can make anything happen in an instant without doing anything then it seems like he has nonmaterial control"

'Refrain' seems to be a leading statement, why WOULD I rationalize? Pride? Yeah, the burden is on you to demonstrate that I'd be too prideful and would rationalize it away. Get your Romans 1:18-20 bs out of here, I am genuinely skeptical, I am genuinely not convinced, I genuinely do not believe I've ever 'felt' the light or seen God's qualities in nature or anything like that, so please. Stop.

Also, seeing as how I was never saved in the first place, if you're going to comment on my personal experiences and how I would personally react, you have zero choice but to consider that because I was never saved (You must not give into appeals to secularism, none of us were ever saved, Ephesians 4:30, 1 John 2:17) that I gave up control of my life to a higher being, repented of my sins, and stopped doing the things I wanted to do for the things that the Biblical Jesus would have wanted me to do, all without any supernatural assistance or a Sky Wizard to draw me from my rebellion, transform me, or humble me to enable me to have faith.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#44Julian_CaesarPosted 5/24/2013 9:37:48 PM
From: JonWood007 | #042
You'd need to provide a large amount of documentation, to say the least. Video evidence, etc. It would be hard to do, admittedly, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.


Video evidence can be easily faked, as can almost any other form of documentation.

You really don't seem to understand the whole "Im not interested in getting in a semantic debate" thing here.


Then learn what the word "universe" really means and stop using it ambiguously. Otherwise it forces a semantics debate in order to have the actual debate.

From: DarkContractor | #043
Ok let's say somehow 2+2=5 was an undeniable, intrinsic doctrine to Christianity. So if you had faith from the get-go, when the correct solution is shown to be 2+2=4 you're saying you would not feel disproven? You're just appealing to your theological believes, me thinks.


That's a horrible analogy. The undeniable, intrinsic doctrines of Christianity are by and large of a nature that their being "proven" or "solved" is inherently impossible, by mathematics or science. In no possible scenario could the assumption "God exists" be proven or solved one way or the other.

And of course I'm appealing to my theological beliefs, knowing that by their nature they are not susceptible to scientific criticism or support.

I think you're pretending that I would be too prideful to accept Jesus if he were to come down here and prove himself to me.


I think you're pretending that such things didn't happen when Jesus actually walked the earth, and performed miracles.

My standards are happily sitting at "if someone can make anything happen in an instant without doing anything then it seems like he has nonmaterial control"


You're deluding yourself if you think your standards could be satisfied with something that simplistic. The entirety of your post suggests otherwise. Masking your inherent assumption that God doesn't exist with the cloak of "well He should just prove it to me beyond a doubt" proves that you don't even understand the nature of your own doubt. Namely, that your doubt is what informs your science, not the other way around (since a doubt informed by science is inherently impossible to be dispelled by a non-scientific God).
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#45JonWood007Posted 5/24/2013 9:56:22 PM
Then learn what the word "universe" really means and stop using it ambiguously. Otherwise it forces a semantics debate in order to have the actual debate.


The article I cited used the word "universe". Blame the article and not me.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#46DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/26/2013 4:01:39 PM

That's a horrible analogy. The undeniable, intrinsic doctrines of Christianity are by and large of a nature that their being "proven" or "solved" is inherently impossible, by mathematics or science. In no possible scenario could the assumption "God exists" be proven or solved one way or the other.

And of course I'm appealing to my theological beliefs, knowing that by their nature they are not susceptible to scientific criticism or support.


Strawman. I'm talking about disproofs, not proofs.


I think you're pretending that such things didn't happen when Jesus actually walked the earth, and performed miracles.


How am I doing that? And how are other people doing such relevant to the discussion of whether or not I would do such a thing?

You're deluding yourself if you think your standards could be satisfied with something that simplistic. The entirety of your post suggests otherwise. Masking your inherent assumption that God doesn't exist with the cloak of "well He should just prove it to me beyond a doubt" proves that you don't even understand the nature of your own doubt. Namely, that your doubt is what informs your science, not the other way around (since a doubt informed by science is inherently impossible to be dispelled by a non-scientific God).


Strawman after strawman after strawman after strawman.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#47DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/26/2013 4:02:12 PM
You forgot to respond to this, btw

'Refrain' seems to be a leading statement, why WOULD I rationalize? Pride? Yeah, the burden is on you to demonstrate that I'd be too prideful and would rationalize it away. Get your Romans 1:18-20 bs out of here, I am genuinely skeptical, I am genuinely not convinced, I genuinely do not believe I've ever 'felt' the light or seen God's qualities in nature or anything like that, so please. Stop.

Also, seeing as how I was never saved in the first place, if you're going to comment on my personal experiences and how I would personally react, you have zero choice but to consider that because I was never saved (You must not give into appeals to secularism, none of us were ever saved, Ephesians 4:30, 1 John 2:17) that I gave up control of my life to a higher being, repented of my sins, and stopped doing the things I wanted to do for the things that the Biblical Jesus would have wanted me to do, all without any supernatural assistance or a Sky Wizard to draw me from my rebellion, transform me, or humble me to enable me to have faith.

---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#48Julian_CaesarPosted 5/26/2013 9:25:21 PM
From: DarkContractor | #047
You forgot to respond to this, btw

'Refrain' seems to be a leading statement, why WOULD I rationalize? Pride? Yeah, the burden is on you to demonstrate that I'd be too prideful and would rationalize it away. Get your Romans 1:18-20 bs out of here, I am genuinely skeptical, I am genuinely not convinced, I genuinely do not believe I've ever 'felt' the light or seen God's qualities in nature or anything like that, so please. Stop.

Also, seeing as how I was never saved in the first place, if you're going to comment on my personal experiences and how I would personally react, you have zero choice but to consider that because I was never saved (You must not give into appeals to secularism, none of us were ever saved, Ephesians 4:30, 1 John 2:17) that I gave up control of my life to a higher being, repented of my sins, and stopped doing the things I wanted to do for the things that the Biblical Jesus would have wanted me to do, all without any supernatural assistance or a Sky Wizard to draw me from my rebellion, transform me, or humble me to enable me to have faith.


None of this was relevant. I didn't respond because I was purposefully ignoring it; anything of substance was stated in the rest of your post.

From: DarkContractor | #046
Strawman. I'm talking about disproofs, not proofs.


You can't call something a strawman just because you don't like the fact that your analogy was inapplicable.

How am I doing that? And how are other people doing such relevant to the discussion of whether or not I would do such a thing?


You're insinuating that the only thing necessary to defeat your skepticism, to believe in Jesus, is the presenting of proper evidence. I'm telling you that no such evidence is possible, based on the kind of skepticism that you are actually presenting (and was presented by others at the time of Jesus).

Strawman after strawman after strawman after strawman.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#49KNessJMPosted 5/27/2013 12:06:30 PM
In order to make believe in a miracle, you'd have to show that any alternative explanation would be even more miraculous.

Therein lies a problem, however. If it depends on how reasonable a given explanation is for an event, people are never going to agree. For some "God did it" is the most obvious answer for all sorts of things. For others, it's the least likely explanation in the world.
---
Quote of the Week: "Sinners, all committing their crimes with abandon, safe in the knowledge that their absolution was one quick church trip away"
#50DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/27/2013 1:33:13 PM

None of this was relevant. I didn't respond because I was purposefully ignoring it; anything of substance was stated in the rest of your post.


So how I have historically approached the issue of God and what I have and have not been convinced by is irrelevant to whether or not I would be convinced by a miracle?

You can't call something a strawman just because you don't like the fact that your analogy was inapplicable.


But what you consider to be my analogy is not my analogy, thus a strawman. I was focusing on the disproof of a substanceless claim. For another example, I could make on zero basis that this topic does not exist. However, the evidence of this topic is in fact a falsification of that. I am arguing that a lack of logic and evidence (which still eludes me as to why you adhere to such a nonfruitful epistemology that yields no intellectual truth whatsoever) in your premise does not mean your premise is necessarily unfalsifiable.


You're insinuating that the only thing necessary to defeat your skepticism, to believe in Jesus, is the presenting of proper evidence. I'm telling you that no such evidence is possible, based on the kind of skepticism that you are actually presenting (and was presented by others at the time of Jesus).


In to which I challenge you to prove my skepticism is of the level you are claiming. You're initial proposal was a rhetorical of how I would refrain from rationalizing such a proof, as though to imply it is in my nature to do so. It does not follow that the people in Jesus' time rationalized miracles so therefore I will as well.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


You keep on making claims about what I have said and what I will do in the face of evidence. I do not think you know what I actually mean, however, and your ignorance on this subject combined with your confidence of my faultiness veils you from such a fact.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya